Posted on 09/07/2008 8:41:08 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Friday 29 August 2008
Friday 29 August 2008 The authorities have lied, and I am not glad
Dr Michael Fitzpatrick, author of 1987’s The Truth About the AIDS Panic, says it is a shame that AIDS insiders did not expose the myths and opportunism of the AIDS industry earlier. But still, better late than never.
Dr Michael Fitzpatrick
There is a widely accepted view that Britain was saved from an explosive epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in the late 1980s by a bold campaign initiated by gay activists and radical doctors and subsequently endorsed by the government and the mass media.
According to advocates of this view, we owe our low rates of HIV infection today largely to the success of initiatives such as the ‘Don’t Die of Ignorance’ leaflet distributed to 23million households and the scary ‘Tombstones and Icebergs’ television and cinema adverts (though they are always quick to add that we must maintain vigilance and guard against complacency).
Now former AIDS industry insiders are challenging the imminent heterosexual plague story and many of the other scare stories of the international AIDS panic. James Chin, author of The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology with Political Correctness, is a veteran public health epidemiologist who worked in the World Health Organisation’s Global Programme on AIDS in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Elizabeth Pisani, a journalist turned epidemiologist and author of The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels and the Business of AIDS, spent most of the past decade working under the auspices of UNAIDS, which took over the global crusade against HIV in 1996. Once prominent advocates of the familiar doomsday scenarios, both have now turned whistleblowers on their former colleagues in the AIDS bureaucracy, a ‘byzantine’ world, according to Pisani, in which ‘money eclipses truth’.
For Chin, the British AIDS story is an example of a ‘glorious myth’ – a tale that is ‘gloriously or nobly false’, but told ‘for a good cause’. He claims that government and international agencies, and AIDS advocacy organisations, ‘have distorted HIV epidemiology in order to perpetuate the myth of the great potential for HIV epidemics to spread into “general” populations’. In particular, he alleges, HIV/AIDS ‘estimates and projections are “cooked” or made up’.
While Pisani disputes Chin’s claim that UNAIDS epidemiologists deliberately overestimated the epidemic, she admits to what she describes as ‘beating up’ the figures, insisting – unconvincingly – that there is a ‘huge difference’ between ‘making it up (plain old lying) and beating it up’. Pisani freely acknowledges her role in manipulating statistics to maximise their scare value, and breezily dismisses the ‘everyone-is-at-risk nonsense’ of the British ‘Don’t Die of Ignorance’ campaign.
Chin’s book offers a comprehensive exposure of the hollowness of the claims of the AIDS bureaucracy for the efficacy of their preventive campaigns. He provides numerous examples of how exaggerated claims for the scale of the HIV epidemic (and the risks of wider spread) in different countries and contexts enable authorities to claim the credit for subsequently lower figures, as they ‘ride to glory’ on curves showing declining incidence. As he argues, ‘HIV prevalence is low in most populations throughout the world and can be expected to remain low, not because of effective HIV prevention programmes, but because… the vast majority of the world’s populations do not have sufficient HIV risk behaviours to sustain epidemic HIV transmission’.
By the late 1980s, it was already clear that, given the very low prevalence of HIV, the difficulty of transmitting HIV through heterosexual sex and the stable character of sexual relationships (even those having multiple partners tend to favour serial monogamy), an explosive HIV epidemic in Britain, of the sort that occurred in relatively small networks of gay men and drug users, was highly improbable, as Don Milligan and I argued in 1987 (1).
As both Chin and Pisani indicate, high rates of heterosexually spread HIV infection remain the exceptional feature of sub-Saharan Africa (and parts of the Caribbean) where a particular pattern of concurrent networks of sexual partners together with high rates of other sexually transmitted infections facilitated an AIDS epidemic. Though this has had a devastating impact on many communities, Chin suggests that HIV prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean has been overestimated by about 50 per cent. The good news is that, contrary to the doom-mongering of the AIDS bureaucracy, the rising annual global HIV incidence peaked in the late 1990s and the AIDS pandemic has now passed its peak.
Most significantly, the sub-Saharan pattern has not been replicated in Europe or North America, or even in Asia or Latin America, though there have been localised epidemics associated with gay men, drug users and prostitution, most recently in South-East Asia and Eastern Europe.
Many commentators now acknowledge the gross exaggerations and scaremongering of the AIDS bureaucracy. It is clear that HIV has remained largely confined to people following recognised high-risk behaviours, rather than being, in the mantra of the AIDS bureaucracy, a condition of poverty, gender inequality and under-development. Yet they also accept the argument, characterised by Chin as ‘political correctness’, that it is better to try to terrify the entire population with the spectre of an AIDS epidemic than it is to risk stigmatising the gays and junkies, ladyboys and whores who feature prominently in Pisani’s colourful account.
For Chin and Pisani, the main problem of the mendacity of the AIDS bureaucracy is that it leads to misdirected, ineffective and wasteful campaigns to change the sexual behaviour of the entire population, while the real problems of HIV transmission through high-risk networks are neglected. To deal with these problems, both favour a return to traditional public health methods of containing sexually transmitted infections through aggressive testing, contact tracing and treatment of carriers of HIV. Whereas the gay activists who influenced the early approach of the AIDS bureaucracy favoured anonymous and voluntary testing, our whistleblowers now recommend a more coercive approach, in relation to both diagnosis and treatment.
Pisani reminds readers that ‘public health is inherently a somewhat fascist discipline’ (for example, quarantine restrictions have an inescapably authoritarian character) and enthusiastically endorses the AIDS policies of the Thai military authorities and the Chinese bureaucrats who are not restrained from targeting high-risk groups by democratic niceties. The problem is that, given the climate of fear generated by two decades of the ‘everyone-is-at-risk nonsense’, the policy now recommended by Chin and Pisani is likely to lead to more repressive interventions against stigmatised minorities (which will not help to deter the spread of HIV infection).
Chin confesses that he has found it difficult ‘to understand how, over the past decade, mainstream AIDS scientists, including most infectious disease epidemiologists, have virtually all uncritically accepted the many “glorious” myths and misconceptions UNAIDS and AIDS activists continue to perpetuate’. An explanation for this shocking betrayal of principle can be found in a 1996 commentary on the British AIDS campaign entitled ‘Icebergs and rocks of the “good lie”’. In this article, Guardian journalist Mark Lawson accepted that the public had been misled over the threat of AIDS, but argued that the end of promoting sexual restraint (especially among the young) justified the means (exaggerating the risk of HIV infection): as he put it, ‘the government has lied and I am glad’ (2).
This sort of opportunism is not confined to AIDS: in other areas where experts are broadly in sympathy with government policy – such as passive smoking, obesity and climate change – they have been similarly complicit in the prostitution of science to propaganda.
It is a pity that Chin and Pisani did not blow their whistles earlier and louder, but better late than never.
Dr Michael Fitzpatrick is the author of MMR and Autism: What Parents Need to Know (buy this book from Amazon(UK)) and The Tyranny of Health: Doctors and the Regulation of Lifestyle (buy this book from Amazon(UK)).
The Wisdom of Whores, by Elisabeth Pisani, is published by Granta Books. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK).)
The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology with Political Correctness, by James Chin, is published by Radcliffe Publishing Ltd. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK).)
(1) Michael Fitzpatrick and Don Milligan, The Truth About The Aids Panic, 1987
(2) Mark Lawson, ‘Icebergs and rocks of the “good” lie’, Guardian, 24 June 1996
|
If you would like to be added to the RETHINKING AIDS PING LIST drop me a FReepmail. AIDS is the biggest public health scam in medical history. Like global warming, AIDS is being used to push a powerful leftist political agenda. For over two decades the Public Health Establishment has used your tax dollars and the full power of the federal government to wage a massive propaganda (and intimidation) campaign designed to: (A) prevent the American public from hearing the scientific evidence that suggests HIV may not cause AIDS Every single point above can be documented on my profile page. If you would like to be added to the RETHINKING AIDS PING LIST drop me a FReepmail. |
ping!
Self inject and them come back, if you can, and tell us about your nut job theory.
They're starting to catch on. From the article:
"This sort of opportunism is not confined to AIDS: in other areas where experts are broadly in sympathy with government policy – such as passive smoking, obesity and climate change – they have been similarly complicit in the prostitution of science to propaganda."
I wonder who actually got all the money alledgly pledged to AIDS.
I always wonder who gets the money.
Given your continual need to cover up how the fast-track gay lifestyle is one of the main causes AIDS, I’m starting to think you delicate geniuses have been dispatched by the Log Cabin “Republicans.” Is this true? Fess up now.
Most diseases are completely avoidable. Influenza? Avoid others. Heart disease? Eat right and exercise. Lung cancer? Don't smoke or breath asbestos. The common cold? Wash your hands.
Don't want cholera? You can completely avoid it by not drinking tainted water.
Don't want tetanus? Completely avoid it by avoiding deep punctures.
I keep on seeing this "completely avoidable" talking point, but it's meaningless. There isn't a communicable disease on the planet that isn't completely avoidable.
The "fast track gay lifestyle?"
The gay "lifestyle" might spread AIDS, but it certainly doesn't cause it.
Heart disease doesn’t fit your scheme since it is not a communicable disease at all.
Cancer is not avoidable. AIDS is avoidable. Can’t change the truth. There are things a person can do to try to lower their possibility of getting cancer. But it is not avoidable. In my work I have seen many cases of lung cancer with no history of smoking. AIDS is completely avoidable.
AIDS is a perfectly natural disease process that will eventually clean up such filth, no matter how many collateral casualties there are.
Nature does not care. Nature does not need human permission.
Wrong.
Neither is lung cancer, which I also mentioned (although some cancers can be caused by communicable diseases).
100% of communicable diseases are completely avoidable. A large number of non-communicable diseases are also avoidable.
And if you have no other water to drink?
Not much of a problem in this country, other than those cases carried across the southern border.
“I hope that the public realizes that having a loud voice doen’t mean it is correct in it’s pleadings”
I have come to the unhappy realization that most of the public is EXACTly that stupid. They have been fed a constant barrage of “if it feels good do it” for so many years, they suck it up like kitties in milk. Want sex?—Have the government pay for abortions, hospice, AIDS research, etc. Eat yourself to obesity? Make the government pay for bariatric surgery. Use drugs? Let the government pay for those, too and needles exchanges of course. Want a superbaby to call your own? Make the government pay for EMBRYONIC stem cell research. Our only hope is that ther are enough Sarah Palins out there to make some people realize the folly of the path that is being followed.
C'mon Chin-- follow the money. All these knuckleheads have enjoyed cushy lifestyles, travel to exotic lands and luxurious "conferences," all on the grant dollar and government dime, and made professional reputations including tenured appoinments.
LIke "global warming", HIV/AIDS pays very well if you're on the right end of things.
When the AIDS epidemic crested the increase in new AIDS cases leveled off among homosexuals, because so many already had it and the rest were being more careful. The AIDS lobby then began to claim that the fastest growing group contracting AIDS was heterosexuals. Of course, given that cases among heterosexual non-IV drug users could have grown from 10 to 11 the statistic was technically correct, but incredibly misleading. This is the kind of propaganda that was being used to try and convince people AIDS was not a lifestyle issue.
To include all the gay activists turned AIDS activists. They went from operating out of the spare rooms of their apartments to rolling in cash almost overnight. They became a powerful political force because conservatives fell for the AIDS scam. For more, see The Hidden Agenda Behind HIV
Excellent point! Give my profile page a look. If you agree that what is contained there needs to be investigated, I would be happy to include you on the Rethinking AIDS ping list.
All the best—GGG
Next will come the crazy notion of a gay lobby pushing a social agenda such as gay marriage. Or, have you heard about the one where the gay lobby got homosexuality taken out of the DSM for mental illness? That they are trying to remove pedophilia next?
Silly silly man. I bet he believes global warming and evolution are agenda driven also, not pure science relying on fact.
Good thing you are here for a reality check for us.
Just like the civil rights agitators of today(Jena 6 anyone?), if the AIDs activists don’t gin up the hysteria, they can’t rake in the big bucks.
And they have a “useful idiot”(sorry guys) in the White House and of course, in congress.
Save this crap for coast to coast AM. I’m sure they will love to hear this crackpot theory, right after they finish talking to the guy who is receiving radio signals from other dimensions through the mirrors in his house.
I agree with you. Being a type 1 diabetic for what seems like forever it is appalling to me that they spend less on thses dieases combined than they do for a diease that under most circumstances isn’t that easily transmitted and in most cases is based on behavior and not because you were just the unlucky one. I personlly think if some of this money had gone to to other dieases like these that we might hav much better treatments and possibly cures for some.
Keep in mind that homosexuals started the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the US and many other nations. Homosexuals are by far the #1 vector for infectious disease transmission. Public health aspects of male homosexual behavior include some of the most disgusting public health threats to normal humans on the entire planet. Here is a quote from one of the deviants in San Fransicko: “I calculated that since becoming active in 1973, I had racked up more than 3000 different sex partners in bathhouses, back rooms, meat rakcs, and tearooms, gay singer Michael Callen wrote (long since dead), As a consequence I had the following sexually transmitted diseases, many more than once: hepatitis A, hep B, Hep nonA/non-B, herpes simplex types I and II, venereal warts, giardia, entameoba histolytica; shigella flexneri and salmonella; syphilis; gonorrhea; chlamydia; cytomegalovirus, and Epstein-Barr virus mononucleosis, and eventually cryptosporidiosis. Not too many episodes of the Will and Grace show revealed these facts.
Ah yes, the myth of the "noble lie." A technique Joseph Goebbels used to great effect.
A lie is a lie, no matter how nobly told.
“As both Chin and Pisani indicate, high rates of heterosexually spread HIV infection remain the exceptional feature of sub-Saharan Africa (and parts of the Caribbean) where a particular pattern of concurrent networks of sexual partners together with high rates of other sexually transmitted infections facilitated an AIDS epidemic. Though this has had a devastating impact on many communities, Chin suggests that HIV prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean has been overestimated by about 50 per cent. The good news is that, contrary to the doom-mongering of the AIDS bureaucracy, the rising annual global HIV incidence peaked in the late 1990s and the AIDS pandemic has now passed its peak.”
Along side the exaggerations of the U.N. and the “no HIV/AIDS CONNECTION” nonsense you've proffered the author accepts the conclusions of those authors he's reviewing.
Promiscuous heterosexual activity spreads other STDs and facilitates the transmission of AIDS.
AIDS is sexually transmitted.
AIDS is an “epidemic” in Africa.
Even if estimates of occurrence are exaggerated by 50% it (AIDS) has been “devastating” to many communities.
So who exactly is this AIDS bureaucracy? The U.N.? Any Dr. that says HIV causes AIDS? Exactly who is being referred to here as a bureaucracy??
In the past you've tried to support the “No HIV/AIDS Connection” nonsense with endless outdated comments from various con men and quacks, so what's the purpose of this post? More of the same?
Thanks for the tip.
Feel free to believe that HIV doesn’t cause Aids. Rosie doesn’t believe fire can melt steel. Both of you are nuts.
The continued prostitution of science saddens me. Is there any doubt we will read future articles acknowledging the same motives and problems with estimates and predictions about global warming?
The diversion of cancer research funding to a behavior driven disease is unforgivable.
The squandering of wealth and food to combat a non-existent problem is unforgivable.
Both causes championed by liberalism, repeated constantly by media, and eventually bought off on by many who call themselves “conservatives”.
What will the future emergency be that follows the same pattern?
Given that you have spent the last several years arguing that anal sex is safe, I suspect you need to look in a mirror.
Actually, it is you who keep citing homosexual publications that advocate anal sex to rebut scientists like Duesberg who say the fast-track homosexual lifestyle causes AIDS. But beyond your disgusting crusade to vindicate homosexuality, what really bothers me is that we have both been told by the mods to steer clear of each other. Why do you insist on following me around and making a mockery of the mods?
I follow you around because you are practicing medicine without a licence, and because your advice, if taken seriously, would kill people.
Um, GGG, you're the one who is arguing that having anonymous gay intercourse with multiple partners is perfectly safe, so long as one does not use drugs while doing so.
I doubt any of the people you posted to share your views on the safety of drug-free gay orgies.
You're 100% correct in my case. I have no use for fagots with or without dope.
Neither do I have any use for nut jobs like the poster.
I have nothing against homosexuals, in general. But only a loon would deny that the largest vectors for the spread of AIDS has been promiscuous male gay sex, followed by the sharing of needles for drug use.
Did the promiscuous gay sex involve the use of drugs? I'm sure that much of it did, but the (non-intravenous)drug use in no way directly led to the transmittal of AIDS.
I have a feeling that this poster is mixing up correlation with causation- homosexuals who use illegal drugs are also likely to engage in other risky behavior, such as unprotected sexual activity with numerous partners.
We aren't talking about other STD's here- we're talking about HIV/AIDS. Your attempt to change the subject notwithstanding, at the end of the day your position still remains that, at least when it comes to AIDS, drug-free gay orgies are perfectly safe.
But a growing number of scientists and medical doctors, many of them at the very apex of their respective fields, are claiming that HIV does not cause AIDS
They may be growing, but they constitute a miniscule percentage of respectable medical opinion on the subject.
If, on the other hand, you prefer to remain ignorant and ineffective on this timely and important conservative issue, then by all means bury your heads in the sand and remain part of the problem. The choice is up to you.
The claim that drug-free gay orgies are safe when it comes to HIV/AIDS is a conservative issue? Who knew?
Anytime science is prostituted to achieve political objectives, it is a conservative issue. In the case of AIDS, science is being prostituted to achieve a left-wing political agenda, which is also a conservative issue. As for “drug-free gay orgies,” the fast-track lifestyle is so extreme that it cannot be sustained without massive amounts of immunotoxic drugs. Try to think like a toxicologist for a moment. What does the following chart tell you???:
Table 3. CDC 1983*: Drug use by American male
homosexuals with AIDS and at risk for AIDS.
Drugs: Percentage users among 50 AIDS cases and 120 at risk for AIDS
Nitrite inhalants 96%
Ethylchloride 35–50%
Cocaine 50–60%
Amphetamines 50–70%
Phenylcyclidine 40%
LSD 40–60%
Metaqualone 40–60%
Barbiturates 25%
Marijuana 90%
Heroin 10%
Drug-free NONE REPORTED!
That there is a high correlation between drug use and HIV/AIDs infection. Which isn't surprising- people who use illegal drugs are also likely to engage in other risky behavior, such as promiscuous and unsafe homosexual sex. Illegal drug use lowers inhibition and impairs judgment. Some of the drugs listed, such as heroin, are also injected, so there's also the issue of shared needles.
You are making the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causation. The drug use doesn't directly cause HIV/AIDS- it's the risky activities that high people engage in that leads to infection. You're acting like you've made some novel discovery, but all your evidence shows is that drug users tend to engage in other risky behavior.
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.
