It is official: Aids is not explicable by sexual transmission. There is no heterosexual Aids pandemic, and further, there will be no heterosexual Aids pandemic.
“Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits”, The Independent announced on Sunday, June 8, 2008, mimicking what I have been reporting for years (and what some of my colleagues have been reporting for decades).
No, really. But take it from someone you trust, Dr. Kevin de Cock of the World Health Organization: “[T]here will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.”
“A 25-year health campaign was misplaced outside the continent of Africa,” the article concedes, daring you hang them all. And so they’re quick to add a massive fiction: “But the disease still kills more than all wars and conflicts”
The authorities explain that they misled the entire world, for decades, because admitting the grandeur of their farce would have encouraged their critics: “Any revision of the threat was liable to be seized on by those who rejected HIV as the cause of the disease.” Of course! We’ve got to protect flawed science from criticism!
But, regardless of past and current performance (and admissions of outright massive fraud), the authorities at the WHO and UNAIDS still want you to believe them, when they talk about Aids, Bird Flu, Sars, and other advertised but not achieved super-pandemics.
Such a weak defense might encourage a curious mind to wonder at the other flaws in their paradigm. For example, are we now to believe that there is a virus that causes a fatal disease, but only in Africans, (wherever in the world they may be), gay men and drug addicts? But not the entirety of the human population that is sexually active?
The answer to the riddle may be found in the actual cause of “HIV” – namely, “HIV testing.” Figure out who is tested, how the tests work (or, more to the point, how they don’t work), and who the tests are said to be accurate for, and you’ll get an understanding of how the “Aids” diagnosis – now, no better than a brand name applied to poverty and drug addiction – actually works.
How do “Hiv tests” work? In sum, they don’t work at all. They come up as “false positives” in numbers far exceeding “true positives”:
“Sir, In the May 9 issue of The Lancet, Round the World correspondents discussed AIDS-associated problems in former Eastern bloc countries…I would like to emphasize another alarming concern – namely, the rapid growth in false-positive HIV tests in the former USSR, and in Russia especially. In 1990, of 20.2 million HIV tests done in Russia only 12 were confirmed and about 20,000 were false positives. 1991 saw some 30,000 false positives out of 29.4 million tests, with only 66 confirmations.” (The Lancet, June 1992)
They have no ability to determine if someone has or does not have the antibodies they think they’re looking for; the interpretation of “HIV positive” is subjective and not consistent:
“At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.” (Abbott labs HIV-1/2 test, 1986 to the present).
They don’t produce singular or diagnostically specific results – they cross-react all over the map:
“Heterophile antibodies are a well-recognized cause of erroneous results in immunoassays. We describe here a 22-month-old child with heterophile antibodies reactive with bovine [Cow] serum albumin and caprine [Goat] proteins causing false-positive results to human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] type 1 and other infectious serology testing. (CLINICAL ANDDIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY IMMUNOLOGY, July 1999)
“False-positive ELISA test results can be caused by alloantibodies resulting from transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear.” (Doran, et al. False-Positive and Indeterminate Human Immunodeficiency Virus Test Results in Pregnant Women. Arch Family Medicine, 2000)
The secondary tests that are sometimes used to give a sense of validity to an initial test are either reformulations of the same material (the Western Blot), or are synthetic genetic probes (PCR Viral Load) that likewise cross-react and give no diagnostically specific reaction (and these tests are rarely to never used when you’re talking about “Aids in Africa”).
“Persons at risk of HIV-1 infection have been classified incorrectly as HIV infected because of Western blot results, but the frequency of false-positive Western blot results is unknown.”(JAMA. 1998; 280: 1080-1085)
“The HIV-1 PCR assay was designed to monitor HIV therapy, not to diagnose HIVinfection…In patients (like ours) with a low prior probability of disease, almost all positive test results are false positive.” (False Positive HIV Diagnosis b HIV-1 Plasma Viral Load Testing. Ann Intern Med, 1999.)
“Helminth (parasitic worm) “load“ is correlated to HIV plasma Viral Load, and successful deworming is associated with a significant decrease in HIV plasma Viral Load.” (Threatment of intestinal worms is associated with decreased HIV plasma viral load. J.AIDS, September, 2002)
How is “Aids” diagnosed in Africa? Aids in Africa is and has always been a clinical diagnosis. It is here too, but we’re more attached to a process of testing, which is, in essence, illusory, because the tests are limited to use in certain groups, for whom the non-specific tests are said to have a “higher positive predictive value”, or to be “more accurate.” But in Africa, this is dispensed with entirely, and “Aids” is diagnosed based on the symptoms of hunger, thirst, TB and malaria – in other words, poverty.
“Our attention is now focused on the considerably large number of the seronegative group (135/227, 59%) who were clinically diagnosed as having AIDS. All the patients had three major signs: weight loss, prolonged diarrhoea, and chronic fever. Many of them also had other AIDS-associated signs, such as lymphadenopathy, tuberculosis, dermatological diseases, and neurological disorders.” (Hishida O et al. Clinically diagnosed AIDS cases without evident association with HIV type 1 and 2 infections in Ghana Lancet. 1992 Oct 17).
TThe numbers that have been reported are also entirely fabricated based on exponential projections from one small group to entire populations. Very recently, these numbers have been revised to such a massive degree so as to drive the the AIDS prognosticators to painful public redaction:
In Swaziland this year, the rate of HIV infection among young women decreased remarkably, from 32.5 to 6 percent. A drop of 81% – overnight. UNICEF’s 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.”(August, 2004, IRIN News, the humanitarian news and analysis service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Cited by Scheff, 2005, Knowing is Beautiful.GNN)
Who are the tests considered “accurate” for? The tests are only considered to be “accurate” for certain groups. Those considered to be at “high risk” are much more likely to be tested, and to have their tests interpreted as either a “true positive,” or, as you can see below, a “false negative.” In other words, if they want you for the “AIDS” diagnosis, they’ll get you:
“Suppose, for example, a single rapid test that has 99.4% specificity is administered to 1,000 people, meaning six will test false-positive. That error rate won’t matter much in areas with a high prevalence of HIV,because in all probability the people testing false-positive will have the disease.”
What disease? Aids? Or Poverty? And can you tell the difference from the tests?
“But if the same test was performed on 1,000 white, affluent suburban housewives – a low-prevalence population – in all likelihood all positive results will be false, and positive predictive values plummet to zero. (Coming to Your Clinic – Candidates for Rapid Tests. Aids Alert, 1998)
Here is the new philosophy of AIDS, and it’s quite a shift (From the Independent): “Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.”
So how did we get to, “it’s only gay men, Africans, drug addicts and prostitutes,” from the advertised version for twenty-five years: “Everyone is at equal risk to contract HIV and to develop AIDS.” What happened to the theory of sexual transmission?
The 10-year 1997 study by Dr. Nancy Padian had a lot to do with its downfall. The study took 175 “mixed” heterosexual couples (that is, one partner testing “positive” and one “negative”), who practiced vaginal and anal sex [for the latter – 37.9% at the commencement of the study, decreasing to 8.1% by the end], both with and without condoms [32.2% condom use at the beginning, increasing to 74% at the end]. But no matter how these folks did it, nobody who was negative became positive:
“We followed up 175 HIV-discordant couples [one partner tests positive, one negative] over time, for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow up… No transmission [of HIV] occurred among the 25% of couples who did not use their condoms consistently, nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up…”
“We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study [nobody became HIV positive]…This evidence argues for low infectivity in the absence of either needle sharing and/or other cofactors.”“
Padian determined that outside of intravenous drug use, this was not a very transmissible “sexually-transmissible disease.” But there is a contention made by Dr. de Cock that some sort of special sexual activity in Sub-Saharan Africa must (but is not evidenced to) explain the differences in “HIV prevalence”. It’s worth looking at studies of sex and “HIV positivity” for comparison. Does sex correlate with “HIV positivity” more than I.V. drug addiction?
In West Africa, these women, all prostitutes, have remained negative for more than five years:
“[This study involved] a group of repeatedly exposed but persistently seronegative female prostitutes in The Gambia, West Africa…have worked as prostitutes for more than five years, use condoms infrequently with clients and only rarely with their regular partners and have a high incidence of other sexually transmitted diseases” (Rowland-Jones S et al. HIV-specific cytotoxic T-cells in HIV-exposed but uninfected Gambian women. Nat Med. 1995 Jan)
In sum, lots of STDs, lots of exposure to HIV positive persons, and no HIV. Here, as reported on PBS’s “RX for Survival” (2005) a group of prostitutes refuses to get sick:
“In Nairobi, a group of prostitutes appear to have natural immunity against H.I.V…. because they have an abnormally large number of killer T-cells.” (New York Times, 2005. Author:ANITA GATES)
In this study in Tel Aviv, girl and boy prostitutes, (with and without original bits and pieces), don’t turn “positive,” unless they’re injection drug users:
“Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence was studied in an unselected group of 216 female and transsexual prostitutes … All 128 females who did not admit to drug abuse were seronegative; 2 of the 52 females (3.8%) who admitted to intravenous drug abuse were seropositive. “ (Modan B et al. Prevalence of HIV antibodies in transsexual and female prostitutes. Am J Public Health. 1992 Apr)
In Tijuana, among a group of hundreds of prostitutes, condoms were used by a slight majority, but then, they said, for less than half the time:
“In order to determine whether prostitutes operating outside of areas of high drug abuse have equally elevated rates of infection, 354 prostitutes were surveyed in Tijuana, Mexico… None of the 354 [blood] samples…was positive for HIV-1 or HIV-2. Condoms were used by 59% of prostitutes but for less than half of their sexual contacts. … Infection with HIV was not found in this prostitute population despite the close proximity to neighboring San Diego, CA, which has a high incidence of diagnosed cases of AIDS, and to Los Angeles, which has a reported 4% prevalence of HIV infection in prostitutes.” (Hyams KC et al. HIV infection in a non-drug abusing prostitute population. Scand J Infect Dis. 1989)
No condoms, no drug use – zero positivity. The same is found in the US and throughout Europe. Injection drug use, not sex, equals “HIV positivity.”
“HIV infection in non-drug using prostitutes tends to be low or absent, implying that sexual activity does not place them at high risk, while prostitutes who use intravenous drugs are far more likely to be infected with HIV. Other prostitute studies tend to be small but similarly emphasize the central role of drug use as a major risk factor: in New York City, 50 per cent of 12 drug users were positive, compared with 7 per cent of 65 nonusers; in Italy, 59 per cent of 22 drug users were positive, whereas none of the nonusers were. None of the 50 prostitutes tested in London, 56 in Paris, or 399 in Nuremberg were seropositive.” (Rosenberg MJ, Weiner JM. Prostitutes and AIDS: a health department priority?. Am J Public Health. 1988 Apr)
That doesn’t sound like much of an STD.
So, do you still believe the WHO, and the medical authorities when they talk about Aids? Despite their incredible, world-changing lies and deceptions, advertising campaigns and persecution of dissenting scientists, do you still believe them when they say that Aids is still a sex-disease, but now, only if you’re Black, gay or poor enough?
We used to have a science in the early 20th Century, that similarly was able to pick the unfit out of risk groups – it was called Eugenics. If humanity is nothing else, we are certainly dogged in our ability to re-invent our old, bad ideas, again and again. (See “Aidstruth.org”)
For the reprehensibly curious, I’ve linked my 2003 exploration of the topic of Aids causes, numbers, drugs and tests. [Here]
No comments:
Post a Comment