Replies

These people toss latex logs into the forest fire and say they're helping.

Of the world's orphans from aids, over 90% reside in Africa.

One child every minute dies of aids in Africa.

Over 50% of the pregnant women tested in subsaharan Africa test positive for aids.

In continental Africa, the total number of known infections is over 10% of the population. Statisticians say when that figure reaches 5%, a pandemic has passed into the exponential range and will increase with lightning speed.

Many Africans refuse to be tested because of the stigma attached; thus the numbers could be even higher.

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?

Of the world's orphans from aids, over 90% reside in Africa.

I don't doubt that Africa has many orphans. I expect it, given living conditions.

One child every minute dies of aids in Africa.

I don't think they can prove it. Where are the graves? Where are all the ELISA and Western blot tests to prove that they even had AIDS and not one of the endemic diseases of Africa?

Over 50% of the pregnant women tested in subsaharan Africa test positive for aids.

You mean "test positive for HIV"? But none of the tests we have actually determine the presence of HIV, only proteins said to indicate its presence. When you say "50% of the pregnant women tested", which test was used? How many confirmation tests were done?

I don't think there is any evidence. WHO and the AIDS industry just spits out these figures. Most AIDS in Africa is diagnosed by the patient having one or more of about a half-dozen diseases endemic to Africa and tropical countries in general. When random testing is done, it's a single ELISA, a notably inaccurate test. We don't accept its results for AIDS diagnosis here. Why should we accept the very spotty use it has in Africa as indicating some huge epidemic.

I want to see studies in which a substantial sample was tested by Western standards and in which malaria, TB and parasitic infections were eliminated. But that research doesn't exist.

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.