Skip to comments.The exploitation of Aids
Posted on 06/14/2008 5:37:36 AM PDT by shrinkermd
The Aids scare was one of the most distorted, duplicitous and cynical public health panics of the last 30 years
Finally we have a high-level admission that there is no threat of a global Aids pandemic among heterosexuals. After 25 years of official scaremongering about western societies being ravaged by the disease with salacious, tombstone-illustrated government propaganda warning people to wear a condom or "die of ignorance" the head of the World Health Organisation's HIV/Aids department says there is no need for heterosexuals to fret.
Kevin de Cock, who has headed the global battle against Aids, said at the weekend that, outside very poor African countries, Aids is confined to "high-risk groups", including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers. And even in these communities it remains quite rare. "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in countries [outside sub-Saharan Africa]", he said. In other words? All that hysterical fearmongering about Aids spreading among sexed-up western youth was a pack of lies.
Much of the media has treated Dr De Cock's admission as a startling revelation. In truth, experts have known for many years that in the vast majority of the world, Aids has little impact on the "general population". In her new book The Wisdom of Whores, Elizabeth Pisani who worked for 10 years in what she refers to as "the Aids bureaucracy" admits that by 1998 it was clear that "HIV wasn't going to rage through the billions in the 'general population', and we knew it".
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Now now now.....we’re not supposed to equate the homosexual lifestyle with AIDS.
I was again told that by a Liberal just a few days ago.
Dr. De Cock. You can’t make up a better one than that.
“Kevin de Cock”
Doesn’t that translate into “Kevin from Cock?”
AIDS was the stalking horse (not the best figure of speech, but I can’t think of anything better). If you couldn’t criticise homosexual behavior on the ground zero of AIDS, then you couldn’t criticise it based on anything. Now that the propaganda effort has ripped the barn door off the hinges with homosexual marriage in the U.S., they don’t need the issue anymore, so the truth can at least come onto the field of public discouse, only as a “historical perspective.”
When wwill we hear this same ‘revelation’ re: global warming?
Ten years, fifteen years?
a great question, and how about the collapse of Darwinism as a comprehensive explication of life on earth?
Money still gets collected for Walks for AIDS. Where does that $$ go? To help poor minority inner city drug addicts and prostitutes? Or to build the warchests of the political lobbyists and upper middle class gay white professionals? Can you imagine having ever had a Walk for Syphilis?
Let's hope it doesn't take 25 years to debunk our new moral crusade, but since there's so much more $$ invested in this one, it just might.
In 1982, a girl with whom I went to high school was diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. She had a rare blood disease and received tainted blood during blood transfusion. She lived the rest of her life educating people about AIDS.
So what if the opportunity was taken to try change risky behavior? Someone’s risky behavior tainted a blood supply that killed this girl.
“The Aids scare was one of the most distorted, duplicitous and cynical public health panics of the last 30 years”
Perhaps so but I rate the DDT scare right up there and pretty close.
You are probably in the right ballpark. I still have Michael Fumento’s 1990 book, “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS”. At the time he was excoriated by the more prominent voices on the AIDS issue.
Now, proving God has a sense of humor, we are told by someone named de Cock that Mchael was dead on, 18 years ago.
I’ve been following this disease since I lost a cousin to what was then called GRIDS, Gay-Related Immunodeficiency Disorder. Cuz had moved to the Castro in San Francisco and revelled in the “bathhouse” culture of the time. Then, the doctors didn’t know what the hell it was, the retrovirus hadn’t yet been isolated, all they knew from tracking cases was it had something to do with gay men, and the deduction it probably had to do with the sex life wasn’t difficult as a question of science.
Politically, something else. To get and maintain the huge funding, it was necessary to scare the bejeezus out of everyone.
BTW, forget the notion AIDS is “God’s scourge” on the sinners. If that were so, why is the group with the lowest incidence exclusively lesbian women? It’s all in the mechanics of transmission. HIV/AIDS is really quite hard to “catch”. Best estimates are about 1 in 500 sexual contacts with an infected person. Needle-sharing in drug abuse is something else, direct blood-to-blood contact has a high probability of transmission, and accounts for a lot of the heterosexual AIDS out there.
Importantly, perhaps the biggest reason for heterosexual transmission in Africa is because a large percentage of the people have *other*, untreated venereal diseases.
This means that if males have open sores on their genitalia, it is a lot easier for them to catch HIV from a female. Otherwise, it is extremely rare.
Leftists lie and the media knowingly goes along with their lies and promotes them. It was the same thing when gays claimed to be 10% of the population. They later openly admitted that they knew that the real number was closer to 2%, but that it was politically expedient for them to claim a higher number. For leftists, like militant gays, power is more important than truth.
I remember when GRID first came out, and the homosexual lobby lowered the boom on the Reagan Administration for not curing it immediately. They even accused Reagan of inventing it.
Then came the lies, that our wives, kids, and dogs were going to get it. If you said it was a gay disease, you were met with all kinds of scorn. The press and entertainment culture were full of stories of newborns in pediatric AIDS units. AIDS was the first full scale use of political correctness. Look at us now.
Your reply reminded me, I got the GRIDS acronym wrong. It was actually Gay Related Immuno Deficiency Syndrome.
The scary thing is, primary result of all this high dollar research and treatment is a generation of gay men to whom AIDS is a distant “monster under the bed”. Back in the day, even after we had nailed the virus, the progress from HIV positive to dying in one or more unpleasent ways of AIDS was inevitable and a fairly immediate spectre.
We can’t cure HIV, but we seem to be able to hold off symtomatic AIDS quite well; if cost is no object. How long has Magic Johnson been bopping around, to all appearances in excellent health?
I have known enough gay people not to paint with too broad a brush. I built a house for a retired gay couple who had been monogamous since their college days. Their risk of AIDS was zero, lower than mine as single, sexually active hetero. It’s all in the behavior.
Sadly, medical science and political correctness now encourage exactly the “behavior”, modification of which should have been our epidemiolgical first line of defense.
In the GRIDS days, there was no alternative. Bathhouses were closed, non-suicidal gay men limited their contacts, etc. Now a part of the gay community regards the right to engage with multiple partners with or without “protection” as a civil right.
Very frustrating, and a gross mis-allocation of research dollars from diseases which afflict far more people. We might as well be paying for liver transplants for alcoholics.
Thank goodness for the Internet as the MSM cannot continue to pose as objective while advancing their agenda.
BTW, way back when AIDS was an issue, I read a lot about it and figured out that if you were not engaged in anal sex, used needles or received a blood transfusion without making sure it was clean you had no real chance of being exposed to this scourge. I guess I should apply for a high position at WHO.