Is It Time To Scrap Condoms And Back AIDS Prevention Programs That Work?

Toogood Reports ^ | January 31, 2003 | Mary Mostert

[George W. Bush]

Or at least we'd find answers that can explain all the evidence. Funny, that's what I always thought science was supposed to do, to explain all the evidence. The current HIV=AIDS=death isn't even close yet after all those billions spent.

[George W. Bush]

I found this three-year-old story from Newsday on the web.
http://www.aegis.com/news/newsday/2000/ND000701.html
What hope is there?

Well, I'll counter with this from Duesberg's site.

The alarming tone of WHO's joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, "AIDS epidemic update: December 1999" (UNAIDS December 1999), announcing that Africa had gained 23 million "living with HIV/AIDS", because they are "estimated" carriers of antibodies against HIV, since the "early 80s" (WHO, Weekly Epidemiological Record 73, 373-380, 1998) is equally surprising in view of information available to the agency. Neither the WHO nor the United Nations point out that Africa had gained 147 million people during the same time in which the continent was said to suffer from a new AIDS epidemic. Likewise, South Africa has grown from 17 million to 37 million in 1990 (United Nations Environment Programme, June 15, 2000), and to 44 million now ("HIV/AIDS in the Developing World", U.S. Agency for International Development & U.S. Census Bureau, May 1999). In the last decade South Africa has also gained 4 million HIV-positive people (A. Kinghorn & M. Steinberg, South African Department of Health, undated document probably from 1998, provided at the Pretoria meeting). Thus South Africa has gained 4 million HIV-positives during the same decade in which it grew by 7 million people.

Moreover, although the 23 million "estimated" HIV-antibody positives are said to be "living with HIV/AIDS" by the WHO, the agency does not offer any evidence for morbidity or mortality exceeding the modest numbers, ie. about 75,000 cases annually, reported by the it's Weekly Epidemiological Records (see above).

The agency's estimates of HIV-positives are indeed just "estimates", because according to the 1985-Bangui definition of African AIDS as well as to the current "Anonymous AIDS Notification" forms of the South African Department of Health - no HIV tests are required for an AIDS diagnosis (Widy-Wirski et al., 1988; Fiala, 1998).

In addition the WHO promotes the impression of a microbial AIDS epidemic, by reporting African AIDS cases cumulatively rather than annually (WHO's Weekly Epidemiological Records since the beginning of the epidemic). This practice creates the deceptive impression of an ever growing, almost exponential epidemic, even if the annual incidence declines (Fiala, 1998).

So, the vast numbers of deaths are just estimates. WHO doesn't claim anything else. Yet, to read the reporting, one would assume those people had actually died. And unless you look closely, you'd never realize that the vast majority of these estimated deaths were never diagnosed with ELISA or Western blot tests to begin with. And even if you disregard all that, then please explain why the WHO is claiming a vast and increasing epidemic but that their own weekly reports indicate a steady death rate of 75,000 per year from what they call AIDS. Explain how South Africa has gone from 17 million people in 1990 to 44 million today.

The actual counts indicate more people alive now in Africa than ever after the disease has been active for about 25 years. So where are the graves? Why are there so many more people alive now than there were back then?

Just which branch of the U.N. should we belive?

It just doesn't add up.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yes, Laurie Garrett parrots the propaganda. Dr. Alan Cantwelll quotes her as an establishment mouthpiece.

But I thought it was interesting.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You said you read Horowitz's book. Maybe not well enough.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I was under the impression Magic is on considerable drug therapy. That's what he says publicly.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I don't think we quite agree yet.

Something's killing Africa, and so far, it's not the drugs.

How convenient for some people to assume drugs will not help Africa. No money wasted on drugs, and Africa continues to disappear.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You've obviously never seen aids.

It will "go away" as easily as sunburn.

[George W. Bush]

You said you read Horowitz's book. Maybe not well enough.

What? When did I say this?

I don't own any books by any author named Horowitz. I don't know of any AIDS books by any Horowitz.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Sorry. Confused the poster.

If you'd like a clear, documented, chilling perspective that is missing from my meager and sole side of this, read "Emerging Viruses" by Harvard's Dr. Leonard Horowitz, as I said few days ago.

$20 on Amazon and every bookstore.

Without reading the other side of this, by someone who knows what they're talking about, our opinions are merely the last thing we read on the web.

[George W. Bush]

you wrote to editor-surveyor: You've obviously never seen aids. It will "go away" as easily as sunburn.

Huh? Then tell us exactly what AIDS looks like.

Officially, it's the presence of the HIV virus with a suppressed immune system in a person whose body is being attacked by one or more of about 30 different diseases, diseases which can appear either with or with HIV in the body. None of the AIDS illnesses is directly caused by HIV. It is the presence of HIV which makes an actual AIDS case. The HIV virus is the 'acquired' part of the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). This is a pretty orthodox definition of AIDS going back to the early Eighties.

HIV plus one or more of about 30 other well-known diseases is AIDS. Do you have a different definition?

Since all the symptoms are essentially other diseases, then just what does AIDS look like? I've never heard anyone make these statements before, implying that AIDS is somehow a disease in and of itself.

[George W. Bush]

Without reading the other side of this, by someone who knows what they're talking about, our opinions are merely the last thing we read on the web.

Well, I don't know about you. I'm posting information from recognized scientific sources including the WHO, USAID, and international researchers. Unfortunately for the WHO propaganda effort, all these other sources indicate that the WHO is wrong or flat-out lying.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It just doesn't add up.

Got that right.

The most disheartening thing about the past few days is reading that the latest rationale is now "where are the graves?"

Certainly, if there are no dead people from aids in Africa, then this is all a giant scam and we shouldn't fall for it.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

FYI

http://www.whale.to/v/cantwell3.html

[Dataman]

It all boils down to personal responsibility, which lefties hate. Self control, you either have it or you don't.

Lefties aren't the only ones. Have you seen some of the WOD and the creation/evolution threads?

[George W. Bush]

The most disheartening thing about the past few days is reading that the latest rationale is now "where are the graves?" Certainly, if there are no dead people from aids in Africa, then this is all a giant scam and we shouldn't fall for it. Yeah, that's the ticket.

That will not do at all. All these deaths are estimated. That is the whole point. No one has ever put any kind of real numbers to this except the steady 75,000 a year.

There's a big difference between WHO estimates and actual verified morbidity. An estimate is a bunch of paper and computer models but are a weak form of evidence compared to dead bodies which were verified infected by HIV and which were killed because of one of the ~30 diseases to which HIV-infected persons succumb when they die of AIDS.

You act as though demanding physical and verifiable proof is somehow unscientific. Well, the simplest proof would be those millions of graves that WHO says must exist. Or bones lying around like the killing fields in Cambodia. There aren't even the bodies and the graves, let alone the reliable proof (by Western standards) that they carried HIV.

So it still doesn't add up even if you would prefer to deflect the argument altogether.

[Publius6961]

It's bad enough to be forced to "support" the perverts with public money.
I really see red when subjected to their recent fraudulent TV ads, however.

If they are intended to generate sympathy, they must be addressed to the bottom 1/2 of 1% of the IQ curve.

[editor-surveyor]

" That's what he says publicly."

Magic is a PC kind of guy now, and knows what he has to say to be acceptable.

"Something's killing Africa, and so far, it's not the drugs."

Yes, the same thing is killing in Africa that has always killed in Africa: T.B., Malaria, Hepatitus, and V.D. and they are doing a better job now because the U.N. has so destabilized that continent with it's many wars, producing famine which weakens the population as a whole, leaving them ever more suceptible to communicable disease, as well as those maladies that result from malnutrition.

Africans are so inconvenient to the globalists; far too many of them are christian, and agrarian.

[editor-surveyor]

"You've obviously never seen aids."

Guess again Dr.E, I've lost a couple of cousins, and many friends, most of whom would still be alive today had they not listened to their doctors telling them that the debilitation that they experienced only when they were on AZT, etc. was due to some other coincidental effect.

[editor-surveyor]

" "Emerging Viruses" by Dr. Leonard Horowitz, is an example of attempted people control by scare-mongering. - It is a useful read only in the study of propaganda and mind control.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I'm not deflecting anything. How can any of us believe anything we read? Have you been to Africa and seen for yourself? Me, either.

But I know several people, some very wealthy, some more educated than you and me put together, and they have been to Africa, and they've lost brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles...

They substantiate the stories of surreptitious cremations and packed hospitals and empty villages. What if the numbers from the WHO and U.N. are conservative, as some say?

All we know is what we hear, see and read. I've seen none of it; I've heard plenty; and I've read people like Cantwell and Horowitz. You should, too. I'd be interested in your opinion.