Skip to comments.Why is HIV So Prevalent in Africa?
Posted on 04/29/2005 10:08:42 PM PDT by David Lane
Why is HIV So Prevalent in Africa?
By Michael Fumento
Tech Central Station, April 15, 2005
A determined renegade group of three scientists has fought for years – with little success – to get out the message that no more than a third of HIV transmission in Africa is from sexual intercourse and most of that is anal. By ignoring the real vectors, they say, we're sacrificing literally millions of people.
These men are no crackpots. John Potterat is author of 140 scholarly publications. He began working for the El Paso County, Colorado health department in 1972 and initiated the first U.S. partner-tracing program for AIDS/HIV.
Stuart Brody, who has just accepted a full professorship in Psychology at University of Paisley in Scotland, has published over 100 scholarly publications, including a book called "Sex at Risk." Economist and anthropologist David Gisselquist has almost 60 scholarly publications to his name and is currently advising the government of India on staunching its potentially explosive epidemic.
These renegades point out that a reason we know vaginal sex can't be the risk in Africa it's portrayed to be is that it hasn't been much of one risk in the U.S. Here 12 percent of AIDS cases are "attributed to" heterosexual transmission, meaning they claimed to have gotten it that way. Of these, over a third are males.
Yet San Francisco epidemiologist Nancy Padian evaluated 72 male partners of HIV-infected women over several years, during which time only one man was infected. Even in that case, there were "several instances of vaginal and penile bleeding during intercourse." So even the small U.S. heterosexual figure appears grossly exaggerated.
The chief reason it's so hard to spread HIV vaginally is that, as biopsies of vaginal and cervical tissue show, the virus is unable to penetrate or infect healthy vaginal or cervical tissue. Various sexually transmitted diseases allow vaginal HIV infection, but even those appear to increase the risk only by about 2-4 times.
So if vaginal intercourse can't explain the awful African epidemic, what can? Surely it's not homosexuality, since we've been told there is none in Africa. In fact, the practice has long been widespread.
For example, German anthropologist Kurt Falk reported in the 1920s that bisexuality was almost universal among the male populations of African tribes he studied. Medical records also show that African men who insist they're straighter than the proverbial arrow often suffer transmissible anorectal diseases.
Yet almost certainly greater – and more controllable – contributors to the African epidemic are "contaminated punctures from such sources as medical injections, dental injections, surgical procedures, drawing as well as injecting blood, and rehydration through IV tubes," says Brody.
You don't even need to go to a clinic to be injected with HIV: Almost two-thirds of 360 homes visited in sub-Saharan Africa had medical injection equipment that was apparently shared by family members. This, says Brody, can explain why both a husband and wife will be infected.
For those who care to look, there are many indicators that punctures play a huge role in the spread of disease. For example, during the 1990s HIV increased in Zimbabwe at approximately 12 percent annually, even as condom use increased and sexually transmitted infections rapidly fell.
Or consider that in a review of nine African studies, HIV prevalence in inpatient children ranged from 8.2% to 63% – as many as three times the prevalence in women who'd given birth. If the kids didn't get the virus from their mothers or from sex, whence its origin? Investigations of large clinical outbreaks in Russia, Romania, and Libya demonstrate HIV can be readily transmitted through pediatric health care.
There's no one reason for the mass deception. In part, once people have established any paradigm it becomes much easier to justify than challenge.
"These guys are wearing intellectual blinders," says Potterat. "Only a handful are even looking at routes other than sex. They have sex on the brain." Other reasons:
Finally, says Brody, for researchers to concede they were wrong would be "to admit they're complicit in mass death. That's hard to admit that to yourself, much less to other people." Hard, yes. And too late for many. But not too late for millions more in Africa and other underdeveloped nations – if we act now.
Read Michael Fumento's other work on diseases.
Michael Fumento is the author of numerous books. His book, BioEvolution: How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World, was published in Fall 2003 by Encounter Books.
The Hidden Face of HIV Part 1
"Knowing is Beautiful"
by Liam Scheff
As a journalist who writes about AIDS, I am endlessly amazed by the difference between the public and the private face of HIV; between what the public is told and whats explained in the medical literature. The public face of HIV is well-known: HIV is a sexually transmitted virus that particularly preys on gay men, African Americans, drug users, and just about all of Africa, although were all at risk. Were encouraged to be tested, because, as the MTV ads say, "knowing is beautiful." We also know that AIDS drugs are all thats stopping the entire African continent from falling into the sea.
The medical literature spells it out differently quite differently. The journals that review HIV tests, drugs and patients, as well as the instructional material from medical schools, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and HIV test manufacturers will agree with the public perception in the large print. But when you get past the titles, theyll tell you, unabashedly, that HIV tests are not standardized; that theyre arbitrarily interpreted; that HIV is not required for AIDS; and finally, that the term HIV does not describe a single entity, but instead describes a collection of non-specific, cross-reactive cellular material.
Thats quite a difference.
The popular view of AIDS is held up by concerned people desperate to help the millions of Africans stricken with AIDS, the same disease that first afflicted young gay American men in the 1980s. The medical literature differs on this point. It says that that AIDS in Africa has always been diagnosed differently than AIDS in the US.
In 1985, The World Health Organization called a meeting in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, to define African AIDS. The meeting was presided over by CDC official Joseph McCormick. He wrote about in his book "Level 4 Virus hunters of the CDC," saying, "If I could get everyone at the WHO meeting in Bangui to agree on a single, simple definition of what an AIDS case was in Africa, then, imperfect as the definition might be, we could actually start counting the cases..." The results African AIDS would be defined by physical symptoms: fever, diarrhea, weight loss and coughing or itching. ("AIDS in Africa: an epidemiological paradigm." Science, 1986)
In Sub-Saharan African about 60 percent of the population lives and dies without safe drinking water, adequate food or basic sanitation. A September, 2003 report in the Ugandan Daily "New Vision" outlined the situation in Kampala, a city of approximately 1.3 million inhabitants, which, like most tropical countries, experiences seasonal flooding. The report describes "heaps of unclaimed garbage" among the crowded houses in the flood zones and "countless pools of water [that] provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes and create a dirty environment that favors cholera."
"[L]atrines are built above water streams. During rains the area residents usually open a hole to release feces from the latrines. The rain then washes away the feces to streams, from where the [area residents] fetch water. However, not many people have access to toilet facilities. Some defecate in polythene bags, which they throw into the stream." They call these, "flying toilets.
The state-run Ugandan National Water and Sewerage Corporation states that currently 55% of Kampala is provided with treated water, and only 8% with sewage reclamation.
Most rural villages are without any sanitary water source. People wash clothes, bathe and dump untreated waste up and downstream from where water is drawn. Watering holes are shared with animal populations, which drink, bathe, urinate and defecate at the water source. Unmanaged human waste pollutes water with infectious and often deadly bacteria. Stagnant water breeds mosquitoes, which bring malaria. Infectious diarrhea, dysentery, cholera, TB, malaria and famine are the top killers in Africa. But in 1985, they became AIDS.
The public service announcements that run on VH1 and MTV, informing us of the millions of infected, always fail to mention this. I dont know what were supposed to do with the information that 40 million people are dying and nothing can be done. I wonder why we wouldnt be interested in building wells and providing clean water and sewage systems for Africans. Given our great concern, it would seem foolish not to immediately begin the "clean water for Africa" campaign. But Ive never heard such a thing mentioned.
The UN recommendations for Africa actually demand the opposite "billions of dollars" taken out of "social funds, education and health projects, infrastructure [and] rural development" and "redirected" into sex education (UNAIDS, 1999). No clean water, but plenty of condoms.
I have, however, felt the push to get AIDS drugs to Africans. Drugs like AZT and Nevirapine, which are supposed to stop the spread of HIV, especially in pregnant women. AZT and Nevirapine also terminate life. The medical literature and warning labels list the side effects: blood cell destruction, birth defects, bone-marrow death, spontaneous abortion, organ failure, and fatal skin rot. The package inserts also state that the drugs dont "stop HIV or prevent AIDS illnesses."
The companies that make these drugs take advantage of the public perception that HIV is measured in individual African AIDS patients, and that African AIDS - water-borne illness and poverty - can be cured by AZT and Nevirapine. Thats good capitalism, but its bad medicine.
Currently MTV, Black Entertainment Television and VH1 are running "Know HIV/AIDS"-sponsored advertisements of handsome young couples, black and white, touching, caressing, sensually, warming up to love-making. The camera moves over their bodies, hands, necks, mouth, back, legs and arms and we see a small butterfly bandage over their inner elbows, where theyve given blood for an HIV test. The announcer says, "Knowing is beautiful. Get tested."
A September, 2004 San Francisco Chronicle article considered the "beauty" of testing. It told the story of 59 year-old veteran Jim Malone, whod been told in 1996 that he was HIV positive. His health was diagnosed as "very poor." He was classified as, "permanently disabled and unable to work or participate in any stressful situation whatsoever." Malone said, "When I wasnt able to eat, when I was sick, my in-home health care nurse would say, Well, Jim, it goes with your condition.
In 2004, his doctor sent him a note to tell him he was actually negative. He had tested positive at one hospital, and negative at another. Nobody asked why the second test was more accurate than the first (that was the protocol at the Veterans Hospital). Having been falsely diagnosed and spending nearly a decade waiting, expecting to die, Malone said, "I would tell people to get not just one HIV test, but multiple tests. I would say test, test and retest."
In the article, AIDS experts assured the public that the story was "extraordinarily rare." But the medical literature differs significantly.
In 1985, at the beginning of HIV testing, it was known that "68% to 89% of all repeatedly reactive ELISA (HIV antibody) tests [were] likely to represent false positive results." (NEJM - New England Journal of Medicine. 312; 1985).
In 1992, the Lancet reported that for 66 true positives, there were 30,000 false positives. And in pregnant women, "there were 8,000 false positives for 6 confirmations." (Lancet. 339; 1992)
In September 2000, the Archives of Family Medicine stated that the more women we test, the greater "the proportion of false-positive and ambiguous (indeterminate) test results." (Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct. 2000).
The tests described above are standard HIV tests, the kind promoted in the ads. Their technical name is ELISA or EIA (Enzyme-linked Immunosorbant Assay). They are antibody tests. The tests contain proteins that react with antibodies in your blood.
In the US, youre tested with an ELISA first. If your blood reacts, youll be tested again, with another ELISA. Why is the second more accurate than the first? Thats just the protocol. If you have a reaction on the second ELISA, youll be confirmed with a third antibody test, called the Western Blot. But thats here in America. In some countries, one ELISA is all you get.
It is precisely because HIV tests are antibody tests, that they produce so many false-positive results. All antibodies tend to cross-react. We produce antibodies all the time, in response to stress, malnutrition, illness, drug use, vaccination, foods we eat, a cut, a cold, even pregnancy. These antibodies are known to make HIV tests come up as positive.
The medical literature lists dozens of reasons for positive HIV test results: "transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear..."(Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct. 2000).
"[H]uman or technical errors, other viruses and vaccines" (Infectious Disease Clinician of North America. 7; 1993)
"[L]iver diseases, parenteral substance abuse, hemodialysis, or vaccinations for hepatitis B, rabies, or influenza..." (Archives of Internal Medicine. August. 2000).
"[U]npasteurized cows milk Bovine exposure, or cross-reactivity with other human retroviruses" (Transfusion. 1988)
Even geography can do it:
"Inhabitants of certain regions may have cross-reactive antibodies to local prevalent non-HIV retroviruses" (Medicine International. 56; 1988).
The same is true for the confirmatory test the Western Blot.
Causes of indeterminate Western Blots include: "lymphoma, multiple sclerosis, injection drug use, liver disease, or autoimmune disorders. Also, there appear to be healthy individuals with antibodies that cross-react...." (Archives of Internal Medicine. August. 2000).
"The Western Blot is not used as a screening tool because...it yields an unacceptably high percentage of indeterminate results." (Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct 2000)
Pregnancy is consistently listed as a cause of positive test results, even by the test manufacturers. "[False positives can be caused by] prior pregnancy, blood transfusions... and other potential nonspecific reactions." (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003).
This is significant in Africa, because HIV estimates for African nations are drawn almost exclusively from testing done on groups of pregnant women.
In Zimbabwe this year, the rate of HIV infection among young women decreased remarkably, from 32.5 to 6 percent. A drop of 81% - overnight. UNICEFs Swaziland representative, Dr. Alan Brody, told the press "The problems is that all the sero-surveillance data came from pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics was based on that." (PLUS News, August, 2004)
When these pregnant young women are tested, theyre often tested for other illnesses, like syphilis, at the same time. Theres no concern for cross-reactivity or false-positives in this group, and no repeat testing. One ELISA on one girl, and 32.5% of the population is suddenly HIV positive.
The June 20, 2004 Boston Globe reported that "the current estimate of 40 million people living with the AIDS virus worldwide is inflated by 25 percent to 50 percent."
They pointed out that HIV estimates for entire countries have, for over a decade, been taken from "blood samples from pregnant women at prenatal clinics."
But its not just HIV estimates that are created from testing pregnant women, its "AIDS deaths, AIDS orphans, numbers of people needing antiretroviral treatment, and the average life expectancy," all from that one test.
Ive certainly never seen this in VH1 ad.
At present there are about 6 dozen reasons given in the literature why the tests come up positive. In fact, the medical literature states that there is simply no way of knowing if any HIV test is truly positive or negative:
"[F]alse-positive reactions have been observed with every single HIV-1 protein, recombinant or authentic." (Clinical Chemistry. 37; 1991). "Thus, it may be impossible to relate an antibody response specifically to HIV-1 infection." (Medicine International. 1988)
And even if you believe the reaction is not a false positive, "the test does not indicate whether the person currently harbors the virus." (Science. November, 1999).
The test manufacturers state that after the antibody reaction occurs, the tests have to be "interpreted." There is no strict or clear definition of HIV positive or negative. Theres just the antibody reaction. The reaction is colored by an enzyme, and read by a machine called a spectrophotometer.
The machine grades the reactions according to their strength (but not specificity), above and below a cut-off. If you test above the cut-off, youre positive; if you test below it, youre negative.
So what determines the all-important cut-off? From The CDCs instructional material: "Establishing the cutoff value to define a positive test result from a negative one is somewhat arbitrary." (CDC-EIS "Screening For HIV," 2003 )
The University of Vermont Medical School agrees: "Where a cutoff is drawn to determine a diagnostic test result may be somewhat arbitrary .Where would the director of the Blood Bank who is screening donated blood for HIV antibody want to put the cut-off?...Where would an investigator enrolling high-risk patients in a clinical trial for an experimental, potentially toxic antiretroviral draw the cutoff?" (University of Vermont School of Medicine teaching module: Diagnostic Testing for HIV Infection)
A 1995 study comparing four major brands of HIV tests found that they all had different cut-off points, and as a result, gave different test results for the same sample: "[C]ut-off ratios do not correlate for any of the investigated ELISA pairs," and one brands cut-off point had "no predictive value" for any other. (INCQS-DSH, Brazil 1995).
Ive never heard of a person being asked where they would "want to put the cut-off" for determining their HIV test result, or if they felt that testing positive was a "somewhat arbitrary" experience.
In the UK, if you get through two ELISA tests, youre positive. In America, you get a third and final test to confirm the first two. The test is called the Western Blot. It uses the same proteins, laid out differently. Same proteins, same nonspecific reactions. But this time its read as lines on a page, not a color change. Which lines are HIV positive? That depends on where you are, what lab youre in and what kit theyre using.
The Mayo Clinic reported that "the Western blot method lacks standardization, is cumbersome, and is subjective in interpretation of banding patterns." (Mayo Clinic Procedural. 1988)
A 1988 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 19 different labs, testing one blood sample, got 19 different Western Blot results. (JAMA, 260, 1988)
A 1993 review in Bio/Technology reported that the FDA, the CDC/Department of Defense and the Red Cross all interpret WBs differently, and further noted, "All the other major USA laboratories for HIV testing have their own criteria." (Bio/Technology, June 1993)
In the early 1990s, perhaps in response to growing discontent in the medical community with the lack of precision of the tests, Roche Laboratories introduced a new genetic test, called Viral Load, based on a technology called PCR. How good is the new genetic marvel?
An early review of the technology in the 1991 Journal of AIDS reported that "a true positive PCR test cannot be distinguished from a false positive." (J.AIDS, 1991)
A 1992 study "identified a disturbingly high rate of nonspecific positivity," saying 18% antibody-negative (under the cut-off) patients tested Viral Load positive. (J. AIDS, 1992)
A 2001 study showed that the tests gave wildly different results from a single blood sample, as well as different results with different test brands. (CDC MMWR. November 16, 2001)
A 2002 African study showed that Viral Load was high in patients who had intestinal worms, but went down when they were treated for the problem. The title of the article really said it all. "Treatment of Intestinal Worms Is Associated With Decreased HIV Plasma Viral Load." (J.AIDS, September, 2002)
Roche laboratories, the company that manufactures the PCR tests, puts this warning on the label:
"The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test .is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection."
But thats exactly how it is used to convince pregnant mothers to take AZT and Nevirapine and to urge patients to start the drugs.
The medical literature adds something truly astounding to all of this. It says that reason HIV tests are so non-specific and need to be interpreted is because there is "no virologic gold standard" for HIV tests.
The meaning of this statement, from both the medical and social perspective, is profound. The "virologic gold standard" is the isolated virus that the doctors claim to be identifying, indirectly, with the test.
Antibody tests always have some cross-reaction, because antibodies arent specific. The way to validate a test is to go find the virus in the patients blood.
You take the blood, spin it in a centrifuge, and you end up with millions of little virus particles, which you can easily photograph under a microscope. You can disassemble the virus, measure the weight of its proteins, and map its genetic structure. Thats the virologic gold standard. And for some reason, HIV tests have none.
In 1986, JAMA reported that: "no established standard exists for identifying HTLV-III [HIV] infection in asymptomatic people." (JAMA. July 18, 1986)
In 1987, the New England Journal of Medicine stated that "The meaning of positive tests will depend on the joint [ELISA/WB] false positive rate. Because we lack a gold standard, we do not know what that rate is now. We cannot know what it will be in a large-scale screening program." ( Screening for HIV: can we afford the false positive rate?. NEJM. 1987)
Skip ahead to 1996; JAMA again reported: "the diagnosis of HIV infection in infants is particularly difficult because there is no reference or gold standard test that determines unequivocally the true infection status of the patient. (JAMA. May, 1996)
In 1997, Abbott laboratories, the world leader in HIV test production stated: "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV antibody in human blood." (Abbot Laboratories HIV Elisa Test 1997)
In 2000 the Journal AIDS reported that "2.9% to 12.3%" of women in a study tested positive, "depending on the test used," but "since there is no established gold standard test, it is unclear which of these two proportions is the best estimate of the real prevalence rate " (AIDS, 14; 2000).
If we had a virologic gold standard, HIV testing would be easy and accurate. You could spin the patients blood in a centrifuge and find the particle. They dont do this, and theyre saying privately, in the medical journals, that they cant.
Thats why tests are determined through algorithms above or below sliding cut-offs; estimated from pregnant girls, then projected and redacted overnight.
By repeating, again and again in the medical literature that theres no virologic gold standard, the worlds top AIDS researchers are saying that what were calling HIV isnt a single entity, but a collection of cross-reactive proteins and unidentified genetic material.
And were suddenly a very long way from the public face of HIV.
But the fact is, you dont need to test HIV positive to be an AIDS patient. You dont even have to be sick.
In 1993, the CDC added "Idiopathic CD4 Lymphocytopenia" to the AIDS category. What does it mean? Non-HIV AIDS.
In 1993, the CDC also made "no-illness AIDS" a category. If you tested positive, but werent sick, you could be given an AIDS diagnosis. By 1997, the healthy AIDS group accounted for 2/3rds of all US AIDS patients. (Thats also the last year they reported those numbers). (CDC Year-End Edition, 1997)
In Africa, HIV status is irrelevant. Even if you test negative, you can be called an AIDS patient:
From a study in Ghana: "Our attention is now focused on the considerably large number (59%) of the seronegative (HIV-negative) group who were clinically diagnosed as having AIDS. All the patients had three major signs: weight loss, prolonged diarrhea, and chronic fever." (Lancet. October,1992)
And from across Africa: "2215 out of 4383 (50.0%) African AIDS patients from Abidjan, Ivory Coast, Lusaka, Zambia, and Kinshasa, Zaire, were HIV-antibody negative." (British Medical Journal, 1991)
Non-HIV AIDS, HIV-negative AIDS, No Virologic Gold standard - terms never seen in an HIV ad.
But even if you do test "repeatedly" positive, the manufacturers say that "the risk of an asymptomatic [not sick] person developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known." (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test, 1997)
If commerce laws were applied equally, the "knowing is beautiful" ads for HIV testing would have to bear a disclaimer, just like cigarettes:
"Warning: This test will not tell you if youre infected with a virus. It may confirm that you are pregnant or have used drugs or alcohol, or that youve been vaccinated; that you have a cold, liver disease, arthritis, or are stressed, poor, hungry or tired. Or that youre African. It will not tell you if youre going to live or die; in fact, we really dont know what testing positive, or negative, means at all."
I was told this is all bush's fault.
The Bangui Definition
In 1985, the World Health Organization called a meeting in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, to define African AIDS. The meeting was presided over by CDC official Joseph McCormick.
He wrote about it in his book "Level 4 Virus Hunters of the CDC," saying, "If I could get everyone at the WHO meeting in Bangui to agree on a single, simple definition of what an AIDS case was in Africa, then, imperfect as the definition might be, we could actually start counting the cases..." The result was that African AIDS would be defined by physical symptoms:
fever, diarrhea, weight loss and coughing or itching. ("AIDS in Africa: an epidemiological paradigm." Science, 1986).
In Sub-Saharan Africa, about 60 percent of the population lives and dies without safe drinking water, adequate food or basic sanitation. A September, 2003 report in the Ugandan Daily "New Vision" outlined the
situation in Kampala, a city of approximately 1.3 million inhabitants, which, like most tropical countries, experiences seasonal flooding. The report describes "heaps of unclaimed garbage" among the crowded houses in the flood zones and "countless pools of water [that] provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes and create a dirty environment that favors
"Latrines are built above water streams. During rains the area residents usually open a hole to release feces from the latrines. The rain then washes away the feces to streams, from where the [area residents] fetch
However, not many people have access to toilet facilities. Some defecate in polythene bags, which they throw into the stream." They call these, "flying toilets."
The state-run Ugandan National Water and Sewerage Corporation states that currently 55 percent of Kampala is provided with treated water, and only 8 percent with sewage reclamation.
Most rural villages are without any sanitary water source. People wash clothes, bathe and dump untreated waste up and down stream from where
water is drawn. Watering holes are shared with animal populations, which drink, bathe, urinate and defecate at the water source. Unmanaged human waste pollutes water with infectious and often deadly bacteria.
Stagnant water breeds mosquitoes, which bring malaria. Infectious diarrhea, dysentery, cholera, TB, malaria and famine are the top killers in Africa.
But in 1985, these conditions defined AIDS.
if only the pope would allow them to use rubbers /s
Do Condoms Protect Against Small Viruses?
The use of condoms is widely recommended to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, including those caused by such viruses as herpes simplex, hepatitis B, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
The efficacy of condoms in these circumstances, however, is unknown. The water-leak test used to ensure the integrity of condoms can detect holes as small as 3 to 4 m in diameter, but sexually transmitted viruses are much smaller, with diameters of 0.04 to 0.15 m. A previous study demonstrated that about one third of condoms tested allowed penetration of HIV-sized polystyrene spheres.
Editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Dr. C. Michael Roland of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington D.C., spoke about his
research on "intrinsic flaws" in latex rubber condoms and surgical gloves (published in Rubber World, June, 1993).
Roland said that what I am about to relate is "common knowledge among good scientists who have no political agenda."
Electron microscopy reveals the HIV virus to be about O.1 microns in size (a micron is a millionth of a metre). It is 60 times smaller than a syphilis bacterium, and 450 times smaller than a single human sperm.
The standard U.S. government leakage test (ASTM) will detect water leakage
through holes only as small as 10 to 12 microns (most condoms sold in Canada are made in the U.S.A., but I'll mention the Canadian test below).
Roland says in good tests based on these standards, 33% of all condoms tested allowed HIV-sized particles through, and that "spermicidal agents such as nonoxonol-9 may actually ease the passage."
Roland's paper shows electron microscopy photos of natural latex. You can see the natural holes, or intrinsic flaws. The "inherent defects in
natural rubber range between 5 and 70 microns."
And it's not as if governments don't know. A study by Dr. R.F. Carey of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports that "leakage of HIV-sized
particles through latex condoms was detectable for as many as 29 of 89 condoms tested." These were brand new, pre-approved condoms. But Roland says a closer reading of Carey's data actually yields a 78% HIV-leakage rate, and concludes: "That the CDC would promote condoms based on [this] study...suggests its agenda is concerned with something other than public health and welfare."
The federal government's standard tests, he adds, "cannot detect flaws even 70 times larger than the AIDS virus." Such tests are "blind to leakage volumes less tha one microliter - yet this quantity of fluid from an AIDS-infected individual has been found to contain as many as 100,000 HIV particles."
As one U.S. surgeon memorably put it, "The HIV virus can go through a condom like a bullet through a tennis net."
It's the same story with latex gloves. Gloves from four different manufacturers revealed "pits as large as 15 microns wide and 30 microns
deep." More relevant to HIV transmission, "5 micron-wide channels, penetrating the entire thickness were found in all the gloves." He said
the presence of such defects in latex "is well established."
For Canada, the story is the same. A standard Health and Welfare Canada test of condoms manufactured between 1987 and 1990, based on stringent tests of pressure, leakage, and volume (as in the U.S., there is no effort to examine micron-level leakage), reported that an astonishing 40% of the condoms tested failed at least one of the tests. Tests in 1991 showed an
"improved" 28% rate.
New US government website attacked for comments on sexuality and effectiveness of condoms
The wording of information about condoms on the site is also potentially misleading (they mean factual). US abstinence education programmes usually only mention condoms when referring to their potential for failure.
The 4parents.com site suggests that condoms offer only moderate protection against HIV and gonorrhoea, less protection against Chlamidya, herpes and human papilloma virus, and that the ability of condoms to protect against syphilis has not been well studied. Although these claims are backed by reference to studies looking at the effectiveness of condoms, they do not acknowledge that the studies were, almost exclusively, conducted in populations with a high prevalence, or risk of sexually transmitted infections.
The rest of the article (attacking the new semi honest official statements on condoms) is a pathetic attempt to defend condoms citing the one and only study (if you can call it that) conducted over twelve years ago that claimed that condoms reduced 'AIDS' in the 132 couples studied. As usual the 'conclusions' section of that report which said 'in real world use condoms failed up to 32% of the time' was ignored.
This study has been contradicted by ALL the 400 subsequent studies almost without exception.
It really does require courage to say stuff like this, and I admire you for it.
HALF A MILLION PROSTITUTES - ONLY 30% CONDOM USE AND YET ONE SIXTH THE PREVALENCE OF AIDS COMPARED TO AMERICA
Population: - 86,241,697 as of July 2004
Population Growth: - 1.88% (well under most countries in Africa)
Death rate 5.53 per 1,000
Median age: - 22.1 years (Lots of young people)
HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate: - Less than 0.1%
HIV/AIDS deaths: - Less than 500
The U.S. Army study of 1.1 million G.I.'s who were stationed in the Phillipines (over a ten year period) and kept 100,000 prostitutes in business (70% were said to be HIV positive.
The study showed only ONE was HIV positive and not sick.This was the only case of mass HIV testing in the World.
Condoms in the Phillipines are of such poor quality that only 8% can even hold water.
There are 400,000 to 500,000 prostituted persons in the Philippines.
Prostituted persons are mainly adult women, but there are also male, transvestite and child prostitutes, both girls and boys. (International
Labor Organization. Dario Agnote, "Sex trade key part of S.E. Asian economies, study says," Kyodo News, 18 August 1998)
In the Philippines, a recent study showed there are about 75,000 children, who were forced into prostitution due to poverty. (Dario Agnote, "Sex
trade key part of S.E. Asian economies, study says," Kyodo News, 18 August 1998)
There are 400,000 women in prostitution in 1998, excluding unregistered, seasonal prostitutes, overseas entertainers and victims of external trafficking. One fourth of them are children and each year 3,266 more children are forced into the sex industry. (GABRIELA, Diana Mendoza, "RP
Has 400,000 Prostitutes," TODAY, 25 February 1998)
Military prostitution, it added, has always been a problem in the past when the US bases were still in the country. Past experience clearly showed that the security of the Filipino people, especially women and children, from the US military was never taken into account.
("Ex-streetwalkers fight VFA: Form advocacy groups in urban centers," The
Philippine Journal, 18 September 1998)
Subsequently, the U.S. built 23 military installations covering a total area of more than 240,000 hectares ofland (2,400 sq.km.) by the time of the signing of the Military Bases Agreement in 1947. At its peak the bases
occupied nearly 1% of the country's total land area not to mention 11,000 hectares of territorial waters and a large swath of air space.
"Why don't Filipinos want US troops in the Philippines?
There is a long history of US military intervention in the Philippines from the Philippine-American War (1899-1916) in which the US colonized the
Philippines. Filipinos resisted and one-eighth of the Filipino people were killed. Even though the Philippines officially became independent from the US in 1946, the US ensured control of the US military bases in the Philippines and access to Philippine natural resources.
The US military bases were finally kicked out in 1991 after mass protest from the Filipino people who were tired of special protected status for US
soldiers, toxic wastes (that until today, the US refuses to clean up), the prostitution of Filipinas, and the spread of alcoholism and drug use.
Filipinos don't want these again. "
I thank you for such a nice comment.
Being 'politically correct' must not cloud the truth. That is the difference between us and liberals.
WHILE WE POOR FINANCIAL AID INTO THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES THERE POPULATION EXPLODES. The 'epidemic' is a scam to get U.S. tax payers hard earned dollars.
Latest stats show 19.75% DECREASE in SA
We are being conned by the WHO
HIV/AIDS as an official cause of death in the year 2001 as available:
<1 year of age: 1.6% (1999)
1-4 years: 3.0% (down from 3.5% in 1999)
15-24 years: 3.0%
0-18 years: not available (1.5% in 1997)
- In table 4.10, no province has a cause of death from HIV/AIDS listed as greater than 3.6% among the leading causes of death.
- Also, in table 4.12, note the large numbers of deaths from "Complications of Medical and Surgical Care" - 7.2% in the under 14's, and 6.7% in the over 65's. Just an interesting aside, considering the recent death of Makhato Mandelo after gall bladder surgery - named AIDS.
The beef is in Appendix E - "All underlying causes of death, 1997-2003, by single years"
Human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] diseases (B20 - B24)
Year - number of deaths - (% of total deaths)
1997 6,234 (2.0%)
1998 7,266 (2.0)
1999 9,925 (2.6)
2000 10,926 (2.6)
2001 9,212 (2.0)
2002 10,425 (2.1)
2003 (----) (2.1)
(A decreae of 19.75% since 2000)
So, consistently, 2.0% to 2.6% of death certificates mention "HIV diseases" as the cause of death in South Africa.
In STARK contrast to the released numbers, WHO/UNAIDS puts the estimated number of AIDS deaths in South Africa in 2003, at *370,000*.
(Source: HIVInsite, http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/global?page=cr09-sf-00
Using the 2002 figures, that would mean that there was an underreporting death from AIDS to the extent of 97%, if you believe that. (10,425 / 370,000)
I find it very hard to believe that because of a social stigma, people would balk at mentioning AIDS as a cause of death, but not Tuberculosis (the highest number of deaths).
On the other hand, this death certificate data has the HUGE advantage of not being based on estimates.
It's amazing how powerful the gay lobby has been in taking a disease first named by the American CDC as GRID (gay-related immunodeficiency). As it has been written, that name was changed quickly to AIDS, and the gay lobby began spinning it into a heterosexual problem also. "Just look, in Africa it's largely straights that get it, although it may look like a gay disease in America."
It seems like a huge publicity game to divert the fact that anal sex results in the largest transmission of AIDS and that means homosexual activity. But U.S. gays want to say it can happen to anyone, and the African AIDS patients want to claim they're strictly heterosexual.:)
Michael Fumento has been the standard bearer against the mythology of AIDS, and that does take a lot of courage. Kudo!
AFRICAN AIDS NUMBERS GROSSLY EXAGGERATED
WASHINGTON, May 4 (LSN.ca) - In a watershed report, WorldNetDaily reveals that AIDS in Africa is defined differently than in America and that when the American definitions are used Africa's reported AIDS 'epidemic' disappears. HIV tests which are essential to the AIDS diagnosis in are not given in except to tiny samples of the population.
Rather in place place the "Bangui Definition" created at a World Health Organization meeting in October, 1985 is used to define AIDS.
According to this definition, AIDS is considered present when a person is diagnosed with two of the following three symptoms combined with any one of several minor symptoms: "prolonged fevers for a month or more, weight loss over 10 percent, prolonged diarrhea."
The minor symptoms include chronically swollen lymph nodes, persistent cough for more than a month, persistent herpes, and itching skin inflammation.
Most people with a knowledge of Africa are aware that such symptoms can be the result of a host of causes other than AIDS in that war-torn and disease-ridden continent. Rather than the tens of millions of AIDS cases in each African country as is reported in the media, strict accounting for AIDS by the American definition reports a cumulative total of 794,444 cases from 1982 to November 1999 (WHO Weekly Epidemiological Record, Nov 26, 1999). African countries, the report notes, cooperate in the charade since "AIDS" acts like a magic word opening the donor coffers of the West.
The report also shows that the quest to show AIDS cases among heterosexuals is the result of zealous bias. Most reports fail to mention that according to the World Bank, under normal, healthy conditions, the chances of an infected man transmitting the virus to an unprotected woman are less then 2 in 1,000. Moreover, the August 15, 1997, "American Journal of Epidemiology" reported that male-to-female transmission of HIV is extremely difficult, requiring on average of one thousand unprotected sexual (non-anal) contacts, and female-to- male requires ann average of 8,000 contacts.
Get the full WND report at:
Yes I have. It is really interesting.
I am glad you drew attention to it.
Ain't that the truth!
Imagine if you could have a pair of shoes made out of it. They'd never wear out and dammed they'd be comfortable.
Needles not sex drove African AIDS pandemicThe re-use of dirty needles in healthcare - not promiscuity - was the main cause of the AIDS pandemic now devastating Africa, according to a controversial new analysis. It challenges the assumption, dating from 1988, that unsafe heterosexual sex accounted for 90 per cent of HIV transmissions in Africa. "We've gathered all the literature we can on AIDS in Africa and the best we can estimate, for sexual transmission, is a quarter to a third," says David Gisselquist, an independent anthropologist from Hershey, Pennsylvania, who led the new study. Dirty needles accounted for almost half of all cases, the re-analysis of research concludes. The work is published as a three-paper set in the International Journal of STD & AIDS... Gisselquist says that with their mindsets fixed on the sexual explanation, researchers have ignored obvious discrepancies. He says the data contradict the idea that Africans are unusually promiscuous, or engage more readily than anyone else in unsafe sex.
by Andy Coghlan
20 February 2003
NewScientistThe Smoking Gun of AIDS[F]ield virologist Preston Marx... argues that injection campaigns in the last century that were meant to treat infections also encouraged strains of SIV--the simian immunodeficiency virus--to mutate from a bug easily squashed by the human immune system to today's epidemic HIV strains... If pockets of HIV existed in isolated African villages for centuries, he wondered, why hadn't the virus been brought to America by the slave trade, where there was a massive movement of people out of supposed HIV hot spots? If, on the other hand, the transfer of SIV to humans is so rare that it only happened in the last century, Marx found it very unlikely that this would have occurred successfully more than once.
by Solana Pyne
Vol. 23 No. 1
January 2002New Book Challenges Theories of AIDS OriginsMonkey cells were routinely used to make polio vaccines then and now. But Hooper theorizes that chimpanzees were also used to prepare the experimental polio vaccine. As circumstantial evidence, he points to a large colony of chimpanzees at the Lindi River in central Congo, where the primates were caught for research... Only a small percentage of chimpanzees are believed to carry the H.I.V.-1 ancestor virus. But if chimpanzee tissues sent to a laboratory in Philadelphia or Belgium were infected, they might have found their way into one or more batches of experimental polio vaccine, particularly the strain known as CHAT, prepared at the Wistar Institute. In such an event, H.I.V.'s simian ancestor might have grown in the batches of polio vaccine used in experimental trials only. When the vaccine was squirted into human mouths, the simian virus could have passed through a sore or ulcer and entered the bloodstream, subsequently to evolve into H.I.V.-1. From there it would have been transmitted through sexual or blood-to-blood contact. Any contamination would have been accidental, because specific tests could not have been performed before 1985, when a simian counterpart of H.I.V. was first isolated.
by Lawrence K. Altman, M.D.
November 30, 1999
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.