In the early ’90s, something remarkable happened in Uganda: While the AIDS epidemic spiraled out of control in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, prevalence of the disease began a steady decline, from 15 percent in the early ’90s to 5 percent by 2001. Thanks to a massive grassroots mobilization, unprecedented financial support from international donors and the leadership of Uganda’s president… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (40)Page 1 of 1 pagesI suppose the one bright spot in the Uganda/AIDS crisis is that the evangelicals, who are pushing the abstincence only policy in the face of evidence that it does not work and that the previous policy did work, is that the evangelicals will pretty much die out as AIDS spreads among them. It’s just too bad that they are and will be responsible for the deaths of so many thousands of rational, normal people who are just trying to get on with their lives, to survive in an increasingly difficult world ruled increasingly by the ignorant, the stupid, the ideological - usually religious, usually conservative. Unfortunately for the evangelicals, and the rest of us, a virus, whether HIV or any other, doesn’t give a good goddam about religion or politics. It will kill anyone, anyone at all, starting with the poor, and gradually working its way up to eventually get the rich and the powerful, like Bush and Museveni, who give it a helping hand.
Posted by Ric on Dec 10, 2005 at 3:33 PM It appears as though Beatrice Were is bemoaning a loss of funding. Traditional AIDS agencies are combative against any idea that threatens their access to money. Their cash stream is based in several axioms: AIDS is sexually transmitted, Condoms and new needles stop the spread of AIDS, and that AIDS medications cure the disease. There is no other reason for Ms. Were to respond in a negative manner towards Ms. Museveni whom is helping young women live responsible lives in it’s most complete form. Ms. Were counters that condoms are necessary to prevent husband to wife and rape transmissions. How ridiculous! are married women to demand condom use throughout their lifetime? I doubt such events are occurring due to Uganda’s healthy 3.0% growth rate. Condoms obviously are not being used by this population. Are rape victims supposed to hand their attacker a condom? Ridiculous. AIDS is easy to understand once the money trail is followed.
It is inportant to note that AIDS is not a new disease, it is actaully a syndrome of the modern world. The AIDS category is 30 old diseases, and when combined together create a diagnosis called AIDS. A blood test is not necessary; even though the test identifies antibodies, the very sign of immune health. Is AIDS sexually transmitted? of course not, prostitutes have never beeen on the CDC’s populations at risk list, and prostitute studies show very low anti-body rates - especially when compared to traditional STD’s.
AIDS in Africa is actually old endemic diseases given a new name. They are the diseases of poverty and malnutrition. Yes there are a few exceptions, but they also have alternative explanantions that do not involve a putative virus.
Posted by Rethinkit on Dec 10, 2005 at 4:30 PM Thanks to Rethinkit for reminding me that arrogance is the handmaiden of ignorance and ideology.
Posted by Ric on Dec 10, 2005 at 5:17 PM Well, I won’t get into name calling. I wish to inform the public that there are bilions of dollars that are applied for every yearin the fight against AIDS. Applicants make their case and hope for the best. I certainly do not believe Ms. Were’s heart is in the wrong place, she presents as a sincere and caring person. I, however, do not accept any statement that is absolutely politically correct. The story on Ms. Were is lock-step with established ideas - and I’m called an idealogue? I encourage anyone whom is reading this article to do a web search on AIDS and add the word “controversy”, that way you can read for yourself. Follow the threads in all directions until a balanced argument has been reached. Enter “Mbeki AIDS controversy” to gain an African, a black definition of sickness and premature death in Africa. Is Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa an ignorant man? He has raised the same questions I have asked. Keep in mind he is one of the architects of “Truth and Reconcilliation”. A strategy that provided South Africans with the chance for peace and prosperity. I am hopeful the strategy works in Iraq and in Lebanon/Israel. So is Mbeki a fool? It is not the fool who questions status quo. It is not the ignorant who questions the dominent paradigm. It is not the arrogant whom is always seeking better answers. I predict that within a year it will be proven that nutrition is the answer to “AIDS” in Africa. It is a shame that someone, such as myself, receives enmity for advocating common sense approaches to assissting Africa. Food, housing,clean water, employment, basic healthcare, good government, conflict/war resolution… statements made by Mbeki and the president of Nigeria. Unfortunately Westerners do not listen to the words of Africans
Posted by Rethinkit on Dec 10, 2005 at 7:18 PM P.S. Ric, all the names that you called me, are actually a reflection of yourself.
Posted by Rethinkit on Dec 11, 2005 at 12:57 AM I saw no point in responding to your second post. However, to say that I called you names indicates the level of thinking you practice. I did not call you names. I noted that your post was arrogant, and based on ideology and ignorance.
As for your comments, is Mbeki a virologist? An epidemiologist? A biologist? A scientist? Does being President of South Africa qualify him in any of those fields? George W. Bush is the most powerful political being in the world, and his ideology, his ignorance, his arrogance have killed tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, and his policies in Africa will kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Africans. If your thoughts on AIDS are accurate reflections of Mbeki’s, then we can count on Mbeki being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents.
As for nutrition being the answer to AIDS, perhaps you might speak to the millions of people who were well fed and healthy and are dead or dying of AIDS. The HIV virus finds fertile fields in healthy people. It can reproduce better with such good food as well-fed human tissue. And it has no qualms about killing prostitutes. Go count the dead, my friend, go count the dead.
I’m not your enemy. You are your own worst enemy and the worst enemy of the people you profess to care about. Oh, yes, food, housing, clean water and the rest should be the goal in Africa and around the world. But without sound science and reality-based disease prevention practices (condoms, clean needles, fact based education, and policies based on the real world behavior of people), just as many people will sicken and die from HIV/AIDS.
A virus has no morality. It has no ideology. It cannot be argued with. It does not engage in political compromise. It has no religion. It possesses no morality. It does not care if you are white or black or red or yellow. It does not care what nonsense Mbeki and Bush spread. It has one imperative - to survive. Tens of millions of people have died to help it do just that. Your appalling and willful ignorance of facts and evidence makes you complicit in its quest.
Posted by Ric on Dec 11, 2005 at 1:36 AM Ric,
I must agree with Rethinkit. What is now called “AIDS” in Africa is no more than what Africans have been dying of all along with a convenient new name that allows for more financial aid to be directed toward them. If this aid was used for needed infrastructure and cleaning up the food and water supply, it would go a long way toward alleviating the problems.
Did you ever consider why the manifestations of AIDS are so different in africa than in the West? Do you seriously think that one little virus can cause such disparate diseases? Are you aware that about 70 conditions cause false positives on “HIV” tests, and that these tests have no gold standard against which to measure?Don’t think that most Americans are in favor of Bush’s actions. Many of us would like nothing more than to see him impeached but Mbeki seems a much more reasonable leader. He may be none of the things you mention, but he has surrounded himself with experts who are. I am personally acquainted with several of them, and I can assure you they are people of great knowledge and unshakable integrity. The fact that they insist on real proof of the causative nature of HIV in AIDS does nothing to undermine these facts.
It is the pharmaceutical companies who stand to lose the most, along with the entire idustry that has grown up around “AIDS, Inc. I do not totally oppose the use of condoms, for some STDs may be prevented by their use. However, the “viral” particles of HIV are too small to be stopped by a condom. And the danger of intravenous drug use lies not in “contaminated” needles but in the drugs themselves. Providing clean needles is tantamount to aiding and abetting the real killer.
If you look carefully, you will find that the conversion of HIV positvesand to AIDS victims does not correlate. You will see that in the Western world, there is virtually no heterosexual transmission that does not involve another risk. Why should this be the case here and not there? It simply makes no sense.
Consider these items. Open your mind. Look beyond what the orthodoxy wants you to know. Therein lies the truth.
truthseeker
Posted by truthseeker on Dec 11, 2005 at 9:57 PM It’s articles and debates like these that point up the absolute necessity for dispassionate, hard data when trying to evaluate health policy and determining how to protect your own health. To the extent that any influential person or agency is able to push their ideological agenda in advance of simple transmission of information from the world’s scientific researchers, no one will be able to draw sensible conclusions about the nature of AIDS or any other controversial disease.
This endless attachment to point-of-view as the standard of truth really must be gotten past. It doesn’t matter if one is African or not when it comes to understanding HIV/AIDS. Suffering or the witnessing of it does not enlighten or inform. It doesn’t matter whether one is religiously oriented or not. Faith does not fill in missing information about the natural world, nor prevent us from understanding hard data once we decide to learn about it. Truth in the objective sense does not depend upon whether one has an orthodox or anti-orthodox perspective. Majorities, fads, accepted doctrines, or party lines are not the measure of truth nor are they inherently antithetical to it. The money trail is a symptom of political and ideological influence, not a factor in viral life processes. All that stuff is irrelevant to viral behavior, and to define truth as a function of these orientations is to believe that the world operates in a way that is dependent upon the understandings and beliefs of human beings. If I could identify one central delusion to which too many people are attached (much to the suffering of millions across the history of humanity), that would be the one.
Human beings are not the center of the universe. It doesn’t matter what’s in our heads, individually or collectively, when figuring out how natural processes like the behavior of pathogens work. The virus (assuming it exists) does what it does no matter how we think about it or what we believe about it. The only smart thing to do is to discover how the virus works (assuming it exists), and guide our actions accordingly. All the ideological, cultural, political filtration of this priority just blocks out the real need, which is to know the facts and to base our actions upon them. And if clear conclusions are not available yet, because the data is incomplete, we need to know that too.
What’s the data? Where are the straight answers? To the extent that these are obscured, overblown, or underestimated, is the extent to which the information has been cooked, making sensible conclusions impossible.
Is there or is there not a virus or class of viruses, as distinct from other viruses, that destroy the immune system over time? Yes or no? Is this known or not?
Can the virus be demonstrated to survive in human semen, blood, tears, saliva, etc etc. How well? Can it be passed to other people through these fluids?
Does the virus shoot through the micropores in latex condoms during ejaculation? Yes or no?
Millions think they know the answers to these questions. If they really do know anything truthful about HIV, it’s because researchers have discovered the answers and the information was disseminated around the world in an unadulterated, uncooked form.
If they really don’t know the facts, it means they’ve been misled from the truth by some person or group that has an agenda they believe is more valuable than the one of people being able to know what really exists and what does not. That means their point-of-view is more important to them than the lives of the people to whom they’re propagandizing.
Is that not a deluded way of thinking? If I put my understandings and values ahead of your ability to know the facts, am I not victimizing you?
Really, this habit of thought that one’s perspective is the pivotal consideration when defining truth needs to be left behind. It’s an example of cultural immaturity that we could very profitably outgrow as a species, regardless of where we grew up.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 14, 2005 at 2:05 AM Kuya,
I wish to point out the world’s scientific leaders have been wrong in the past. They once said the world is flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that scurvy is a contagious disease, that those with pellegra are infectuous, that Swine flu was about to sweep the nation, that Legionnaire’s disease actually exists, and currently that SARS is a great danger, only eclipsed by the so-called “bird flu”. None of the above statements hold any truth, even though there are reams of documents to support their hypotheses.
In the USA 98% of us die from lifestyle diseases and only about 2% from infectuous disease. I, however, doubt even the 2% since lifestyle diseases are often attributed to a contagion. Why are we not affected by “germs” ? Well it seems are nutritional system provides a defense for combatting any threat. It should not surprise anyone to understand that infectuos diseases in the West result from severe drug addiction - including pharmaceutical compounds.
We must understand that those in the scientific establishment trump their causes, it is their prerogative. it is our responsibility to analyze the information and decide for ourselves. Too many people are being used and abused by the pharmaceutical industry. Countless others are mortified over infectuos threats that do not exist.
Question authority. It is your responsibility.
Posted by Rethinkit on Dec 14, 2005 at 6:43 PM Hello Rethinkit,
You’re certainly right that the scientific establishment is not immune from the same kind of orthodoxy-obsessions or factionalizing that can be found in so many human enterprises. The points I described above apply to them as well.Modern scientific research is generally done with a focus on small, tightly confined areas of study, in hopes that by incremental steps we can gain a gradually clearer picture of how the world works (including the way diseases work, the way we work physiologically and mentally, etc etc).
When scientists are being true to the spirit of science, they concentrate on empirical data and whether that data tends to support or not support theoretical explanations and hypothetical predictions about how things in the world are thought to function. They question each other, critically examine each other’s findings, look for possible flaws in research design or statistical interpretation, and re-do studies to see whether proposed theories and hypotheses are substantiated or not. They never think that they’re done learning about the world, if, that is, they’re being true to the scientific method and the attitudes that underlie it.
The examples you mention where wrong understandings were floated as unquestionable truths came from two main things, as best I understand them. First, misunderstandings about cosmology (e.g. the Earth at the center of the universe) was an idea enforced by the Roman Catholic Church. As you know, Galileo Galilei was threatened with torture and placed under house arrest for years because his publications challenged this wrong view. Overweaning authority enforced a false understanding so as to uphold their own unchallengeable status. In the case of wrong understandings about diseases, popular ignorance coupled with lack of proper research tools (e.g. in a time before the science of optics allowed us to see micro-organisms), in addition to the church’s prohibition against cadaver studies and other forms if necessary research, helped lead to these. People believed for centuries that disease comes from evil spirits; some today are trying to revive mystical explanations for these maladies.
Try rubbing a crystal on a mole or scar, and see if it disappears…
You’re also quite right in pointing out that commercial enterprises like drug companies have agendas that might not square with that spirit of science I describe above. Questioning, investigating, hesitating to consider an issue closed, questioning some more, all of this is quite necessary if we’re to ever learn anything that we can truly count upon. And we have! Many aspects of cosmology, psychology, biology, medicine etc etc are very much better understood today than in the past, and whenever they’re subjected to continued scrutiny in the spirit of science those understandings are generally supported. If they need to be revised as new and better data is found, then revised they should be.
(to continue)
Posted by Kuya on Dec 15, 2005 at 2:44 AM Perhaps where we disagree is in the view that anti-orthodoxy MUST be closer to the truth than an established understanding.
By the way, speaking of “understanding”, if I am misunderstanding your own views, please correct me.
Anyway, my post from Dec 13 was trying to express my own view that there are such things as knowable truths about the world, including the way that diseases work. In my view these are not altered by the fact that some factions, companies, agencies, churches, and ambitious characters within the scientific community have their own agendas ahead of learning and disseminating knowledge. The benefit of questioning scientific findings is central to established scientific methods. Whether confirmable information does or does not get circulated is less due to the nature of the information and much more due to the politics of factions. The scientific community can get caught up in that nonsense too.
But I still maintain that accepting an anti-orthodox viewpoint simply because it is not orthodox does not get us any nearer to the truth. They are a faction too, with their own agenda and their own internal politics, no less than status-conscious scientists or governing boards of drug companies. To accept one as automatically having a higher level of integrity than the other sounds to me more like an act of faith or loyalty, and I don’t consider those to be the proper ways of thinking about issues to which hard data can be applied.
So, for instance, I would not agree that good nutrition alone is sufficient protection against some pathogens. Certainly it is part of a regimen that can boost immune responses. But as best I understand, some micro-organisms can ravage the human frame in the absence of intervention, e.g. vaccination against polio.
Now, could all my supposed knowledge be the result of a vast hoax, a global conspiracy to trick people into getting vaccinated and taking medicines, to the profit of some companies. I admit, it is remotely possible. However, in reality, I think it would be impossible to sustain the hoax because too many scientists of integrity would shoot it down. There’s too much freedom of investigation and too much access to media to be able to trick us all like that for long.
I’d rather grant my confidence to data and the confirmable conclusions it supports AFTER repeated investigations are done, regardless of the perspectives of those who argue about it or the worldview they subscribe to. My question is, can we get such data, and if not, who is the one keeping it from us?
I agree with your admonition to question authority, but my prior concern is to emphasize the necessity of learning how the world really works and using that knowledge to the benefit of people and the world we inhabit, independently of who is in charge or what factions are arguing about it. The real universe operates the way it does whether we recognize it, learn about it, profit from it, or turn our faces away from it.
Maybe you would agree, it is a singularly human foolishness to believe more in our ideologies than in what we can observe with our senses and investigative tools. Neither establishments nor their opponents are immune from that. Unless, of course, they determinedly refuse to delude themselves like that and try to see things clearly, and exercise the discipline of mind to step outside their point-of-view.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 15, 2005 at 2:45 AM Well, that was a pretty blabby post, I guess I sort of got on a roll.
But you get my drift, eh?
Posted by Kuya on Dec 15, 2005 at 2:51 AM Kuya, excellent posts. I get your points and they are good ones. You say :
Now, could all my supposed knowledge be the result of a vast hoax, a global conspiracy to trick people into getting vaccinated and taking medicines, to the profit of some companies. I admit, it is remotely possible. However, in reality, I think it would be impossible to sustain the hoax because too many scientists of integrity would shoot it down. There’s too much freedom of investigation and too much access to media to be able to trick us all like that for long.
I would like to share some examples of science run amok. Secret experimentation that in many cases is not a secret anymore and speculation about ongoing secret experimentation.
Thanks to people of integrity blowing whistles and subsequent investigations, some of this experimentation has been exposed. Goverment admission of experimentation on unwitting human subjects is, sadly, a fact.
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 15, 2005 at 3:09 AM As for monetary profit we need only examine a well worn script.
WELL- WORN SCRIPT - Tim O’Shea -thedoctorwithin.com
Historical context is certainly relevant: avian flu is right on schedule, with the winding down of the post 9/11 smallpox vaccine and SARS vaccine programs. In these two instances, appropriate hysteria was whipped up, billions were spent, and magically – poof! – both threats disappeared.
Nature abhors a vacuum – new funding requires new threats – ergo, we need avian flu to take up the slack. As for marketing, it’s already in place. Why change a successful sales strategy? In the fall of 2005, the identical techniques by which SARS and smallpox vaccine terrorized the American psyche were trotted out again, this time to sell avian flu:
create hysteria by incessant media ops, painting a picture of Armageddon; short on science, long on unsupported overstatement and stock phrases that are repeated and repeated.
a constant stream of predictions from “scientific” sources who have done no new actual studies, but instead re-interpret old material
offer a solution, an expensive solution involving unproven old medicines and untested new ones
spend the money
never mention the threat again
Tried and true, works every time, a slam dunk.
And don’t forget about the Anthrax vaccine program too. Some soldiers in the armed forces have refused to participate because of legitimate concerns and had that right upheld in a court of law.
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 15, 2005 at 3:22 AM
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 15, 2005 at 3:27 AM Other nations, mine included, too. The list is predictably long and distinguished. Here is another example.
In the Shadow of Past Atrocities : Research Ethics with Human Subjects in Contemporary Japan
Of course, this in keeping in mind that for the most part the governments have admitted past atrocities and promised not to do it anymore. Really, you can trust them now.
Now it would seem that some drug manufacturers are doing some of the governments dirty work and possibly getting legislation that protects them from all manners of lawsuits but Legislation would require proof of willful misconduct.
Willfull misconduct? We didn’t know what would happen. How convenient.
But having said all this ...
I would like to think that we are not all human lab rats but I am certain that this is still going on in various dark corners and even right in front of our eyes.
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 15, 2005 at 4:58 AM Hello Canadian Dave,
Thanks for all those links, mucho apreciado. Actually, even though I took issue a bit with Rethinkit’s post, he (or she, as the case may be) isn’t totally off-base by expressing skepticism in relation to the medical/scientific establishment, even if I do think that automatic anti-orthodoxy as a basic approach to truth isn’t any more reliable than knee-jerk orthodoxy.For example, I’ve never had a flu shot in my life, and haven’t caught the flu for more than 20 years. And I’m a teacher! Let me tell you, schools are absolute germ-buckets, with clouds of micro-snot laden air and surfaces dripping with the prints of unwashed hands! Hardly a week goes by when I don’t hear one or more of my kids snorting or hacking.
It’s the crystals I wear, of course, talismans against unclean spirits…
...just kidding. They’re just pretty rocks.
As I’ve said in a few different threads, so many of these debatable issues get down to the question of ethics, and whether the people making decisions that impact others care very much about whether they do harm or not, or who they’re willing to harm in pursuit of whatever agenda they prize.
Sometimes it looks like people think of an ethical stance (which might be understood as an agreement with oneself that certain kinds of actions will not be done) as an expensive luxury. Not to suggest that there’s just one stance that’s ethical, although I’m personally attached to that “treat others the way you want to be treated” stuff. Seems pretty fool-proof, if one has even the smallest pretensions toward anything called morality.
As for “willful misconduct”, maybe it would be better if prosecution derived more from the results of action, rather than being so focused on intent. How the hell does anyone know anyone else’s intentions? Doesn’t that standard of evidence just reward lying or obfuscating?
Well, I aint a lawyer, so maybe someone better versed in the intricacies of law could explain it to me.
One thing’s sure, if we’re not thinkers, we are lab rats. Or maybe just suckers.
No we’re not even as cool as rats, when we quit thinking. They don’t trick themselves or lie to themselves, and we do it all the time.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 15, 2005 at 5:47 AM I’ve never had a flu shot in my life, and haven’t caught the flu
Me too.
And isn’t catching the flu, assuming you are a healthy individual and it doesn’t kill you, as good or even better, in the long run, than a flu shot?
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 15, 2005 at 9:19 AM Well, you guys have a lot to say! I made a post yesteday that didn’t seem to go through, so I will address just a few of these points. These days, there is so much interference in the scientific process that it is very hard to determine what is and isn’t true. The tendency toward globalization is a very dangerous trend.
When virtually all our food is supplied by very few huge conglomerates, not only is our choice taken away, but varieties that have adapted to specific environments will die out and more famine will result.
The same is true of the huge drug companies. They have made it financially impossible for small companies with important discoveries to get their products to market. This is due to the extreme cost of doing so. It is also a great conflict of interest when the drug companies are funding the studies on their drugs! There is great temptation to alter studies and cast the best possible light on one’s products. Just yesterday I reaqd an article regarding the “ghost writing” of scientific papers by writers hired by drug companies.
I fear that, barring some major changes, the days of fair and honest reporting are gone. The media themselves are more than eager to promote the orthodox view without investigating all possibilities.
This is the most disturbing part of AIDS dissidence—not that everyone does not wake up and smell the coffee, but that the information has been so severely suppressed. Exrtemely qualified scientists who were investigating various things about AIDS came to independent conclusions that the common theory just does not add up. The predictions have not come true. Heterosexual transmission in the West is virtually nonexistent barring other risk factors. Lifestyle factors, including malnutrition, are much more predictive of AIDS, and positive HIV tests are not predictive of developing AIDS to the degree they should be. The “HIV” virus has never been properly isolated. We really don’t know what the tests are testing for. Plus there are 70 conditions that cross-react with the test and produce false positives.
There is way more than I can go into right now, but I suggest reading information from both sides and determining where you stand from that. There is a great deal to question. There are many discrepancies in the orthodox view.
I. for one, am extremely angry that I never knew there were alternative explanations until recently, and that I took ARVs for so long. I am living quite healthily without them now, relying on proper supplements and good nutrition. After months of reading voraciously and weighing all the facts, I am now firmly planted in the dissident camp. Show me the actual literature that proves that HIV causes AIDS or even that it exists as an exogenous virus, and I might reconsider
Kary Mullis, Nobel laureate for the invention of polymerase chain reaction (which is used in viral load tests) searched for such a reference when writing a paper and discovered that there was none. This started his investigation into the whole mess. And he says that pcr is useless in the way it’s being used to check “viral load”.
It is things like this that makes one wonder what is going on. What started as (probably) an honest mistake has been snowballing into a disaster of epic proportions. Once HIV was accepted as the “probable” cause of AIDS, all other research went out the window. Read Duesberg and Mullis and Bialy, and especially Matt Irwin, who treats AIDS patients, and see what you think.
Posted by truthseeker on Dec 15, 2005 at 4:07 PM I am living quite healthily without them now, relying on proper supplements and good nutrition.
Good to hear you are doing well, Truthseeker.
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 16, 2005 at 7:46 AM HIV DOES TOO CAUSE AIDS.
All the suspicions and doubts raised so far do NOT RELATE and don’t impune the integrity of the science that determined the ultimate cause of HIV is the HIV Virus (I and II).
FRENCH SCIENTISTS were the first ones to isolate the virus
and determine it was the cause. American researchers quickly confirmed the finding.All those companies you suspect of being part of a cover up had NOTHING TO DO with the FRENCH RESEARCH. French Research other research worldwide all agree with the basic research here, the HIV virus causes AIDS.
There are NO EXTREMELY QUALIFED scientists who study HIV that agree with you in regards to the causes of HIV. Name whoever you want, a quick google will uncover their lack of proper credentials.
Mullis is NOT an AIDS researcher, he’s a biochemist, which to unlearned ears may sound like someone who should know, but he IS NOT. Being a nobel prize winner doesn’t make a person a specialist in every field of science.
In his rantings on HIV he blames the lifestyle of gay men, a theory discredited in the early 1980s. To back up his “feelings” he makes gross generalizations that ALL of them got HIV from living a decadent lifestyle. To believe his idea, one must also believe that HIV in Europe and Africa are different deseases.
Duesberg (?) explanations are so absurd they are laughable. He bases all his explanations on very outdated information.
To believe him is about as logical as deciding all modern day Astronomers are ignorant, because astronomers once thought the sun went around the Earth
Science is always learning and changing. During that time theories are sometimes temporarily accepted until they are proven false or factual.
Matt Irwin self-contradicting illogic is rediculous. His 10 reasons why HIV virus does not cause AIDS are bottom line wrong because they are improperly reasoned out (if we had endless space I’d refute)
He counts on the lack of knowledge of his readers, and their faith in him as a Dr. to mislead them. He does NOT SPEAK FACTUALLY. He takes info out of context, or take out-of-date information and refutes it.twists and distorts the truth by to make his case that what the HIV researchers say is wrong.
To use info from the mid-1990s is beyond ignorant, it’s purposefully deceptive. His facts are pretty much disproved by modern research.
What should make their insincerity apparent is the amount of time they spend in CHARACTER ASSASINATION of the HIV medical researchers like Ho.
They do NOT refute logically and honestly the findings of HIV researchers. Instead they just say they do not believe it.
Saying you do NOT believe something is NOT DISPROVING RESEARCH.
Worst of all those guys, do NOT agree on the cause of HIV.
Each of them has their own theory. and when asked if they have tested their theory, they all say the same excuse. Well we would, but we don’t have the money and/or we can’t find willing subjects. blah blah blah.
Denialists all do the same thing, they are blind to any information that contradicts what they already feel or believe and hone in on anything they read that corroberates what they feel.
When they find that kind of info, they agree with they accept it without question. They do NOT question it, or examine it with the extreme critical eye they use on legitimate research.
Don’t be fooled anyone.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Dec 16, 2005 at 7:02 PM HETEROSEXUAL TRANSMISSION IS a big risk in the West
In Europe HIV IS A HETERO DESEASE Only in the USA has HIV stayed a desease of Gay men.
The conclusion that it must be a different desease is easy to logically explain away as I will try to do.
The reason so much Attn. is focused on it is to find out how to keep it that way. LOL Not to kill gay men, but to protect the larger society.
Unfortunately, until because of how each society on Earth has different customs and beliefs which are key to the different characteristics of the HIV epidemic in different parts of the world. Scientists may be geniuses in their field, but they can be dunderheads creatively speaking LOL especially if it involves sexual practices of someone else.
American researchers are an uptight bunch, when compared to the European researcher or Asian researcher.Because they are, they often overlook the different practices of various culturesthat might might be the reason why the HIV epidemic is spreading so differently in various regions of the world.
The victorian attitudes of American researchers has resulted in one piece of erroneous information being treated as irrefutable even though as early as 1988 there was solid proof of the opposite. Accepting this data was doubly hard due to what In my OPINION it’s a weird sort of sexism that insists on seeing all risks associated with HIV transmission be tied to what women or the passive partner. The male sexual role was assumed to be that of the victim. It’s NOT purposeful, just a reflection of how society at large views the roles of men and women in sex.
The one factor that makes Hetero transmission a major factor in the rest of the world and NOT in the USA is the USA’s extremely high rate of circumcision vs. a vs. the rest of the world.
Trying to get an American man to talk about penises is a difficult task indeed. It is frought with dangers that you or the person you are speaking to is a homosexual. Researchers are no different. So they stayed away from it, even though early research pointed right to circumcision as a key to HIV Hetero transmission.
It has been known since the late 1980s that circumcised men, straight or gay do NOT experience any appreciable risk from “insertive” sex. One thorough study indicated 0 risk. It was immediately declared false even though follow up studies confirmed it. The worst results indicated a circumcised man didn’t risk HIV infection from insertive sex any more than he did than receiving oral sex.
Part of the problem was American researchers had been forced to focus on Gay sex rather than Hetero sex. I imagine it was pretty distasteful to many a straight researcher to have to listen to and ask questions in detail about the anal sexual practices of homosexual men. In the end they adopted that all sexual intercourse is unsafe. I bet you anything they did so in order to avoid listening to any more details of anal sex between men. Besides such a conclusion fits nicely with the biases of a heterosexual man in regards to MSM practices. It is just too gross no matter what role you are in to be safe. LOL They just couldn’t accept that “insertive” sex was NOT risky for a circumcised man, and only the “receptive” partner risked contracting HIV. Their focus on risk associated with sex in general rather than the roles and different characteristics of the participants made them miss the forest for the trees.
And so it remained for almost 20yrs, until the French revisited the topic. The immediately cancelled studies when it was shown that being circumicised dramatically reduced chances of HIV transmission, and declared this was indeed so.
They did their studies in Africa however and not Europe, and as a result their studies also had a flaw that went undetected.
CONTINUED
Posted by johnnyincentx on Dec 16, 2005 at 7:49 PM HIV IN AFRICA vs. USA vs. EUROPE. - continued.
The French did their studies in Africa however and not Europe, and as a result their studies also had a flaw that went undetected.
They assumed an African study could be a decent model for European transmission. They were only testing for the risk associated with being UNcircumsized.While they did prove beyond a doubt being circumcised dramatically lessons the possibility of a man contracting HIV, they didn’t get a totally accurate result because like Americans their own bias and cultural assumptions prevented them from factoring in yet another practice in Africa that skewed the results and made them relative rather than absolute.
In Africa the practice of female genital mutilation is still widespread. Female genital mutilation on a woman FGM involves wounding and scarring the opening of a woman’s vagina and often complete removal of the woman’s clit.
The painful healing can result in the brutally cut vaginal tissue healing almost totally shut or worse if infection sets in as it often does.
It’s most often done by village practitioners using crude instruments that result in excess damage. It’s done as a right of passage. Various cultures do this to ensure the purity of their girls before marriage by taking all the pleasure out of sex. They won’t seek it.
Eventually the poor woman will have sex. When she does so she finds that sex for her is always bloody, due to the scar tissue that tears rather than stretching as healthy vaginal tissue does during sex. If you have a scar anywhere you know this does not get better.
Some cultures are so severe in their FGM practices that a man has to cut open his wife’s scarred up vagina in order to have sex with her.
In such a poor place, many women depend on prostitution to survive, especially among the well-traveled trade routes.
Anyone with a reasoning mind can see the result of the combination of lots of UNcircumcised men who CAN contract HIV from insertive sex with women who were FGM’d.
HIV transmission back and forth between men and women in Africa is easy and quick, because it’s so bloody RELATIVE to the sex in Europe and way more bloody than in the USA.
Women do have periods, but that is not the same as LIVING blood from your bloodstream full of active infectious virus due to vaginal scars being ripped open during sex. Additionally sex during a period can be avoided. African women trying to survive do not have an option.
When this simple understanding is factored in to the RESULTS of the analysis of the French study, one realises that the PROOF that being CIRCUMSIZED provides men almost complete protection contracting HIV from “INSERTIVE” sex pretty undeniable.
Factoring in circumcision also explains the rapid heterosexual spread of the virus in the USA among minority populations.
Non-hispanic whites still ARE overwhelmingly circumcised.
Only a minority of Blacks are (around 45%) and an even smaller minority of Hispanics are (about 30% approx.) (These numbers are lower or higher depending on what region.)
As circumcision rates fall in this nation among Non-hispanic whites, the fact that circumcision is the wall that prevents rapid spread of HIV among Heteros will be proven yet again.
as HIV rates rise in that group.There does seem to be a threshold somewhere that must be crossed related to the % of circ and uncirc men there are in a group in order for HIV to become an easily spread illness among Heteros. Once that is crossed Americans will join the rest of the world in having HIV be a hetero illness.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Dec 16, 2005 at 8:00 PM CONCLUSION:
What makes all this info so confusing to so many is Researchers NEVER say NEVER unless the risk is absolute zero. Even if the risk were ONLY viable if a man had sex a milion times a year, a researcher would still say “very low risk” rather than no risk.
The inability of researchers to use common language to describe risks associated with various sexual practices means a lot of people get stressed and ignore all warnings, but that’s another story.
More analysis of the data collected over 30yrs. makes this conclusion even more irrefutable.
Of the millions who have contracted HIV in the USA, only a small handful can be attributed to “insertive” sex.
Virtually all cases in the WEST can be traced to RECEPTIVE anal sex/vaginal sex or drug abuse.
Cases where the insertive partner claims he got it from vaginal/anal sex penitration are overwhelmingly men who were UNcircumcised and/or engaged in oral sex while suffering from some sort of oral condition like gingivitus or mouth ulcer.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Dec 16, 2005 at 8:07 PM Okay,first of all, even Montagnier admits that the French never purified the virus. Isolation according to Koch’s postulates was never attained. Just because theykeep moving the goalposts doesn’t make them winners.
Research based on lifestyle issues was prematurely discontinued when the putative “probable cause of AIDS” was announced. There’s overwhelming evidence that the use of poppers was the cause of KS, which is rarely seen these days. I have read the stories of the numbers of diseases, great overuse of drugs (including antibiotics), and all the other factors which ran rampant in the gay community. It’s quite easy to see how immune systems were compromised. And let’s not forget that malnutrition fits in there, too. When there is evidence of heterosexual “transmission”, drug use is usually prominent.
Let’s also remember that we are not dealing with a “disease” here. The last letter in that acronym stands for SYNDROME. It makes no sense that one virus heretofore unknown can cause the variety of diseases credited to HIV. Granted, the possibility exists that something could cause different forms of immune suppression, but diseases of overgrowth of cells, too? Simply makes no sense. So many things make no sense.
It’s quite reasonable that the dissenting scientists don’t agree on a certain cause—-there is no one cause. There are many reasons an immune system can fail—there always has been. I won’t argue about the circumcision thing—it’s just too ridiculous to even mention.
The proof is simply not there—not even that HIV exists as an exogenous entity. Little bits of RNA floating around do not a virus make. There are no EMGs of isolated viral particles—they’re all in there with lots of junk.
So believe in the holy church of AIDS if that’s what makes you happy. I need real proof, and it’s just not there.
Posted by truthseeker on Dec 16, 2005 at 10:23 PM HIV DOES FULFILL THE Koch’s Postulates and a PURE virus isolate has been obtained.
HOWEVER, prior attempts were not successful because .TECHNOLOGY had to be developed to do so
Why is it you are so fixated on OUTDATED data and techniques that proved not up to the task?
Koch says:
1. The microorganism must be found in all cases of the disease.
..............With PCR it is possible to isolate the virus from virtually anyone who has AIDS.2. It must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture.
................Tech. improvements in cross culture techniques have finally done that.3. It must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host.
4. It must be found in the experimental host so infected.
.............................Part of the reason why #3 and #4 of Kochs postulates were so hard to adhere was they required a person to be followed from the moment of infection. The only way ensure the exact moment of exposure to and infection by the HIV would be to PURPOSELY INFECT A HUMAN BEING with HIV. The postulates require absolute proof. People coming into a Drs. office and testing positive do NOT meet this criteria.During the research studies, a few unfortunate lab techs were infected with the HIV virus. These accidents provided the opportunity to follow HIV infection from the moment it happened to the end when it caused AIDS and met the criteria for #3.
Once they were diagnosed with full-blown AIDS, tests successfully isolated HIV in all such cases - proving #4.
——————————— ;———————
You are clearly confused by what a “THEORY” entails. A theory is NOT a CONCLUSION.
A THEORY is an educated guess. Early researchers theorised that KS and HIV might be the same thing.
KS is RARELY seen, because of a treatment HIVers were given early on in the epidemic, acyclovir. They received it to control the herpes viruses that caused cold sores and genital herpes. Eventually the cause of KS was found to be a related Herpes virus which ACYCLOVIR also turned out to be effective in controlling. Once the use of Acyclovir became widespread, GUESS WHAT - the incidence of KS plummeted!!!
POPPER USE was the BIGGEST RED HERRING. The use of poppers causes the body to produce MORE of a chemical ALREADY AND CONSTANTLY USED EXTENSIVELY WITHIN THE BODY for muscle control.
No less than the DEA which is ardently anti-drug did a study to prove it’s DANGER, ONLY TO FIND OUT - other than causing severe headaches POPPERS are HARMLESS.
Your comment that “HIV is a syndrome” and your explanation shows you are seriously out of touch with what HIV is responsible for and not responsible for.
HIV really only destroys T4 Helper cells. This causes the delicately balanced immune system to get seriously out of whack and eventually cease functioning or malfunction terribly.
Once the immune system is knocked far enough out of kilter, 100s OF OTHER INFECTIVE AGENTS take advantage.
HIV ONLY MAKES THIS POSSIBLE. NO RESEARCHER SAYS HIV CAUSES ALL THESE OTHER ILLNESSES. What they do say is HIV, by disabling the immune system, enables a host of other infective agents to make you sick and eventually kill you.
IF it does NOT make sense to you it’s probably, because you do NOT have the advanced medical research degree
Unfortunately you have decided your inability to comprehend is legitimate doubt.
How little you understand is made clear by your comments like…................little bits of RNA floating around do not a virus make….....................or….............................there are no pure isolates of the virus.
NO ONE says little bits of virus DO Make a virus. AND AS I SHOWED you are WRONG about NO pure isolates being obtained as well as the reason for that not happening previously.
Your final statement about the “church of AIDS” indicates the basis of your beliefs - faith NOT science. Science canNOT disprove faith when someone has a desire to believe something else.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Dec 17, 2005 at 12:29 AM Believe what you like—I’m not arguing this anymore. My statement about the church of AIDS was aimed at you and the orthodoxy. The HIV hypthesis is the faith. I’m an atheist. You’re welcome to dance on my grave when I die of “aids”.
Posted by truthseeker on Dec 17, 2005 at 12:53 AM Johny,
I liked that rant about barbaric Africans. Thabo mbeki, the President from South Africa, has said pretty clearly that such statements are patently racist and serve to titilate white minds. Won’t you ever stop!
You and your plague mentality. Marburg virus, Ebola virus all wiping out the African continent yet they never reach U.S. shores. Kind of strange don’t ya think. What about the ability of planes to transport infected people in a few hours. Science fiction fantasy of the Stephen King style. Kind of like how “bird flu” hails from Asia, all the diseases just happen to head West once attaining virulence. P.S. Avian Flu is bogus too, just like our departed friend S.A.R.S. That little bugger just happened to disappear. Not that all those SARS patients were on steroids and other pharmaceutical drugs.
You said: “HIV virus”. Let me translate for you; that’s “human immunodeficiency virus virus”. OK, you have not been brain washed.
If you read the earlier posts you’d know we already discussed how the scientific establishment gets it wrong time and time again. Scurvy, pellegra, malaria. You can’t blame them, every time they say “it’s contagious” incredible wealth seems to result.
denialist? Hah! that’s namecalling. Designed to destroy anyone whom does not cow to the establishment.
receptive vaginal sex? You can’t be serious. There are about 20 million women in Canada and about 40 are diagnosed with “AIDS” each year. Do the math.
Koch’s postulate’s? Lab worker? That’s strange considering nurses get about 50,000 needle sticks per year and not one nurse has died after claiming contraction of “AIDS” by on the job exposure. Not one. Is this really a blood borne pathogen? What a lie! How many lab workers have died? Let me guess? None! Yes, None! Riiight! What else? PCR proves Koch’s other postulate? Like truthseeker said “bits of rna don’t make a virus”. And chimpanzees seem to live just fine with “SIV” and “HIV”. Oh, but cats have, what you call it “FIV”.
You ascribe miracles to acyclovir. KS was deadly to many men in the 80’s, and your’e saying a pharmaceutical drug is 100% curative. It can’t even heal herpes.
Kudos again to truthseeker whom said AIDS is defined as a syndrome not a disease.
We should not lose our common sense. All around us people are dying from lifestyle causes: heart disease, cancer, diabetes, blood poisening, accidents, murder, suicide, hospital errors…...Not viruses.
Posted by Rethinkit on Dec 17, 2005 at 2:37 AM David,
Excellent posts. It is astounding Mr. Frist wants to pass a law exempting vaccine companies from suit. Hopefully Americans will develop the brains to laugh out loud at such ridiculous behavior.
The scientific establishment did a good job increasing the autism rate from 1 in 250 in 1990 to 1 in 150 in 2003; 1 in 66 for boys. Well done!
It is a shocker that we believe viruses are a threat. More shocking that we allow them to stick needles into our three month old infants. Not finished, we have to repeat the torture at age four.
Polio is bogus too. Another lifestyle disease turned into billions for the rich.
The whole vaccination process is totally unnecessary, not to mention poisenous.
Posted by Rethinkit on Dec 17, 2005 at 2:48 AM RETHINKIT - it was inevitable the RACE card would be played. How ironic you did it the most sexist way imaginable.
I guess since it is ONLY AFRICAN WOMEN who are demanding this practice stop; since it’s only AFRICAN WOMEN across the continent joining together to make it so; since it’s only AFRICAN WOMEN who are coming forward and proving it is still happening, I guess IT DOES NOT MATTER TO YOU.
NOT IF A MAN, Mbeki says it is not so.
What a low, cowardly tactic to try. To think you’d go so far AS DENY the reality of FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION. Sorry, but FGM IS A FACT in many African cultures. IT IS HAPPENING TODAY. To just decide to NOT believe that women suffer in tremendous #s from this practice shows how you really do value your fellow human beings.
BUT WAIT, what is even more absurd is MBEKI does NOT talk about FGM.
His strong opinions on HIV have NEVER translated into the UNrelated subject of FGM. I guess you thought I’d just believe you and accept your false inference?
There is NO EXCUSE for your ignorance, not with GOOGLE making information so easily available.
You willfully make up things and attribute them to Mbeki.
You dismiss out of hand of the complaints of women across Africa in their fight against FGM.
You blithely accuse me of racism in an attempt to cast doubt on what I write.
Such behavior exposes you as the hypocrite you are.
When the FACTS PROVE YOU WRONG. You try to character assassinate to those who expose your falsehoods.
You know what you are STILL WRONG. ;)
To show just how beyond ridiculous you are, let me ask anyone…...
Do YOU take advice from GEORGE W. BUSH on medical issues?
If someone told you hey I double check with ole’ W before I follow any medical advice. Wouldn’t you think that person is daft?
Yet time and time again denialists bring up Mbeki to buttress their false claims re: HIV.
Mbeki’s job in South Africa’s is the same one GEORGE W. BUSH has here. He is just a politician.
Since when does being a politician make someone a medical research expert?
LOOKING TO MBEKI FOR MEDICAL GUIDANCE IS NO MORE SENSIBLE THAN LOOKING TO GEORGE W. BUSH. LOL
You lend NO credence to your lies by trying to buttress them with Mbeki’s comments.
NOW as far as running a country well, NOW there is where Mbeki can be a great help. He’s done well overall in S.A.
The rest of your nonsense has been refuted, BUT AS is the norm, you DID NOT READ what I said.
I never said acyclovir was 100% curative. However it’s interesting that you would interpret what I did say that way. Your ignorance is showing.
RE: 50,000 needle sticks DO NOT = 50,000 cases of HIV.
Once again you think you are logical when YOU ARE ABSURD. I’ll leave you to ponder just how stupid your statement is.
Oh and oh yeah, YOU OUTRIGHT LIE, and claim not one nurse has died from HIV. THIS IS A LIE. YOU OUTRIGHT LIE.
Then you backtrack and say you GUESS.
HEY THERE IS GOOGLE. Why not try it instead of guessing.
You are so sure of your beliefs, you make up factual sounding crap and try to pass it off, because you are sure NO ONE will KNOW the truth.
Sorry, I DO KNOW, and you are lying. First off, lab workers are NOT nurses. Second off, some nurses have died, BUT I guess they left you off the notification list. Gee I wonder why?
The extent you will go to portray your illogic as logical would be hysterical if it did not cause people to doubt the things that could help them live better lives.
You are no better than religious nuts who refuse to allow their children to get medical treatment.
Both you and they do it for reasons of faith, a faith that is NOT reasonable, provable or factual, and should never be respected when it starts to affect other people.
Do what you want with your own treatment. That’s your right, but you should keep your lies to yourself.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Dec 17, 2005 at 5:13 AM Truthseeker - your evil nature shows LOL In your last comment.
As is typical of denialists, when they cannot shove their lies down someone’s throat, they turn tail and run but not before they wish great harm on you.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Dec 17, 2005 at 5:22 AM Dear Johnny,
Would you be so kind as to post a reference for even one nurse whom made a claim of on-the-job exposure and then died. I’ve visited the cdc website and they cite 24 nurses claim to be hiv positive from on the job exposure. They have another section that tallies the number of healthcare workers whom have died of AIDS, but none in that group claim on-the-job exposure. Only three of the 24 are female yet women make up 80% of the profession. Rather odd, wouldn’t you say?
This link should work: www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/BLOOD/hivpersonnel.htm
They list 23,212 people with “a history of working in the healthcare field”. I’d like to see the number whom have died of cancer “with a history of working in the health care field”. I bet it tallies about 2 million - since 1981.
I’d also appreciate a reference for any lab worker whom has died from on-the-job exposure.
Sincerely
P.S. it appears you misunderstood truthseeker’s last statement, read again if you would.
Posted by Rethinkit on Dec 17, 2005 at 7:46 PM For anyone following this thread, the 23,212 deaths generated involves anyone whom has ever claimed any employment in the medical field. This segment has only been on the site for the past year. The previous 10 years only showed those whom “claimed” on-the-job exposure. the last segment was added to dodge embarrassment over a “blood borne pathogen” that did not kill healthcare workers (EMT’s, surgeons, E.R. nurses, nurses, tech’s).
You just have to ask what are the numbers for cancer mortality and healthcare workers. Does it mean their cancer is related to them ever having worked in the healthcare field? Very strange, wouldn’t you agree?
You not only have to read for yourself, but you have to read very carefully. The CDC has a lot at stake in their efforts to instill fear in the public. Fear generates funding, cements power, and provides prestige.
Eyes open everyone.
Posted by Rethinkit on Dec 17, 2005 at 8:10 PM Johnny,
Please explain to me how Truthseeker’s evil nature shows in the last comment?
Please consider apologizing.
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 17, 2005 at 9:42 PM RETHINKIT:
You really go to great lengths to make facts out of the “LACK” of information.
Did you bother to check if that site provides that information for healthcare workers for ANY OTHER disease. I did, and doing so shows why your paranoia and suspicion are leading you so astray.
The link you point to GIVES what it says it GIVES. - it’s a SURVALENCE NOT a MORBIDITY site. Every single # on that page could be dead, and it would NOT be mentioned.
Once again your lack of training in understanding how statistical information is parsed in order to make it as useful as possible causes you to suspect a cover up.
Exactly why do you think you should find morbidity info at the link you gave? Your reasoning is faulty, and as a result you mislead yourself and misinterpret the meaning. Because it is NOT there, you decide they are hiding something.
To you that’s splitting hairs, but you know what any researcher or statistician knows the devil is in the details.
Without painful Attn. to the context and intention of the source, misinterpretation is almost certain.
You want data to be generally applicable and all-encompassing. Such data is there, but due to the nature of such data, you will NOT find the specific data you want. Because you can’t you assume it’s a front.
Good specific data is not mixed in and matched up arbitrarily. It’s clean and concise and specific. Good analysis keeps the connections obvious and logical.
When you try to analysis you arbitrarily take bits and pieces and mix and match things seemingly basing connections on whether “it makes sense” or if it “is not strange.” This method ensures you will make many false conclusions.
To understand data, one MUST ACCEPT the context it was given. Instead of doing that you use your suspicion and paranoia to fill in the blanks.
If you cannot accept the context, then you cannot use the data honestly.
My experience is personal re deaths, and I’m not going to give you their names.
I knew two medical professionals in SF when I lived there for a time, one was str8, and the other was a gay, and both said they contracted HIV on the job. One even made the papers.. This was way back in the early ‘80s.
Because they contracted it so early on, both developed AIDS prior to solid effective treatment and passed away, one in ‘94 the other in ‘96.
When they died both of their families refused to allow the cause of death to be listed as HIV. Instead one family listed it as due to lymphoma. The other listed it as due to brain cancer.
I imagine you think this proves your point that HIV does not kill people.
Well, as I said HIV rarely DIRECTLY kills anyone. It’s the developing of opportunistic infections that HIV makes possible by destroying your immune system that kill people.
Healthy people simply do NOT contract such illnesses without HIV destroying their immune system.
Your inability to understand how both statements can be true makes you think that one must be false.
BOTH ARE TRUE. However in your mind - true facts are black and white. If a fact like the above is not black and white, you think it false. They are both true, and in fact buttress each other.
You really need to take some advanced classes in statistics, logic and reading comprehension, and STOP SKIMMING when you read. Evelyn Woods speed-reading may be handy for getting through a boring reading assignment, but it’s worthless for reading complex, interdependent statistics and analyses, some of which are conclusions and others hypotheses.
You simply do not have what it takes to understand the information you are finding.
That lack plus your inherent paranoia is leading you to assume assume and assume when data YOU DECIDE should be there is not.
The only deception is in your mind.
(oh and yes I know I could use some grammar and spelling classes, but luckily those are incidental to performing the above. LOL)
Posted by johnnyincentx on Dec 17, 2005 at 10:09 PM I’ll answer any replies when I’m online again in a few days. LOL
Posted by johnnyincentx on Dec 17, 2005 at 10:12 PM Johnny,
Well yes, I did partially misread the report. Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to say:
“Overall, 73% of the healthcare personnel with AIDS, including 1,407 nurses, 385 dental workers, 328 paramedics, and 92 surgeons, are reported to have died.”
So, I think it is a little bit more than surveillance. Note the word “reported”, they are treading a thin line.
Now, if you have a reference for your statement, I’d be impressed.
Posted by Rethinkit on Dec 17, 2005 at 11:10 PM Thank you, Rethinkit and David. Johnny did indeed misread my very brief statement while taking to task anyone he thinks has not read all of his lengthy, ranting diatribes.
I’m quite healthy and very happy to have taken charge of my own healthcare, and don’t believe I said anything to indicate an evil nature. A little sarcasm, maybe. I haven’t run away—I just refuse to participate in a futile argument with an irrational person. I do, after all, have a life to lead.
I am only hoping that there are people reading this who might find some enlightenment if they too are not satisfied with the orthodox theories. I only ask that they investigate all possibilites before making up their minds. There are, indeed, lives at stake, and no one is trying to force anyone into anything. At least not from this side.
Posted by truthseeker on Dec 18, 2005 at 2:46 AM Johnny,
Got that reference about lab workers whom died from “AIDS” while doing research? No? Got any references for nurses or healthcare workers whom claim on-the-job exposure and have died?
Front page headlines:
“Nurse Whom Cared for AIDS Patients Dies!”
“Jane Shmane who worked tirelessly for AIDS patients died after receiving one of many needle sticks. Ms. Schmane received state of the art AIDS drugs - toxic chemical compounds such as AZT - but succumbed to pneumonia.”
Someone put a year to that headline and story. 1984? 1990? 1997? 2003? No, none of the above.
Well, we just better wait for Johnny’s reference. I might have missd something.
Eyes open, hearts free everyone.
Posted by Rethinkit on Dec 18, 2005 at 2:45 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Christopher Hayes
- The New Road to Serfdom
Over the course of 500 pages in The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein documents the moments of chaos and disruption that allow a small coterie of experts to swoop in and administer what's invariably called "bitter medicine," "painful reforms" or "shock therapy" - Who’s Afraid of Democracy?
Believing that "people are rational as consumers and irrational as voters," many conservatives would favor free markets without democracy - What We Learn When We Learn Economics
Is a little economics a dangerous thing? - The Abramoff Babies
Like the "Watergate Babies" of 1974, the new Democratic Congress will have to pick between sustanative or procedural reforms. - The Good War on Terror
How the Greatest Generation helped pave the road to Baghdad - Economic Populism Proves Popular
To thwart legislation that put caps on payday lending rates, Republican lawmakers in Oregon had to pass it
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
