Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

Qualified outsiders and maverick insiders are often right about the need to replace received wisdom in science and society, as the history of the Nobel prize shows. This blog exists to back the best of them in their uphill assault on the massively entrenched edifice of resistance to and prejudice against reviewing, let alone revising, ruling ideas. In support of such qualified dissenters and courageous heretics we search for scientific paradigms and other established beliefs which may be maintained only by the power and politics of the status quo, comparing them with academic research and the published experimental and investigative record.

We especially defend and support the funding of honest, accomplished, independent minded and often heroic scientists, inventors and other original thinkers and their right to free speech and publication against the censorship, mudslinging, false arguments, ad hominem propaganda, overwhelming crowd prejudice and internal science politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, health and medicine, diet and nutrition.

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

Henry Bauer, Peter Breggin , Harvey Bialy, Giordano Bruno, Erwin Chargaff, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Crick, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw, Freeman Dyson, Peter Duesberg, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, John Fewster, Galileo Galilei, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Edward Jenner, Benjamin Jesty, Michio Kaku, Adrian Kent, Ernst Krebs, Thomas Kuhn, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Eric Penrose, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick, Sherwood Rowland, Carl Sagan, Otto Rossler, Fred Singer, Thomas Szasz, Alfred Wegener, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson.
----------------------------------------------

Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

Skepticism is dangerous. That’s exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And that’s why there is a great reluctance to teach it in schools. That’s why you don’t find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don’t have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy? – Carl Sagan (The Burden of Skepticism, keynote address to CSICOP Annual Conference, Pasadena, April 3/4, 1982).

It is really important to underscore that everything we’re talking about tonight could be utter nonsense. – Brian Greene (NYU panel on Hidden Dimensions June 5 2010, World Science Festival)

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing ever interfered with my learning was my education. My name as you already perceive without a doubt is George Bernard Shaw, and I certainly approve of this blog, in that its guiding spirit appears to be blasphemous in regard to the High Church doctrines of science, and it flouts the censorship of the powers that be, and as I have famously remarked, all great truths begin as blasphemy, and the first duty of the truthteller is to fight censorship, and while I notice that its seriousness of purpose is often alleviated by a satirical irony which sometimes borders on the facetious, this is all to the good, for as I have also famously remarked, if you wish to be a dissenter, make certain that you frame your ideas in jest, otherwise they will seek to kill you.  My own method was always to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then to say it with the utmost levity. (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt for Life magazine) One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways. – Bertrand Russell, Conquest of Happiness (1930) ch. 9

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

BEST VIEWED IN LARGE FONT
Expanded GUIDE TO SITE PURPOSE AND LAYOUT is in the lower blue section at the bottom of every home page.

Times’ biased view

Times prints one-sided story on South Africa yet again

Lack of professional ‘objectivity’ in AIDS has created scandalously biased narrative

Stain on public record – and Times’ own record

southafricabbaytreated.jpgA report today by Celia Dugger from South Africa, Rift Over AIDS Treatment Lingers in South Africa repeats every misleading assumption in South African AIDS as if it is gospel, and once again blindly insults president Thabo Mbeki and his health minister as if they were in the service of ignorance and nonscience, and they were the betrayers of good scientific principles, rather than the activists and insufficiently researched Times reporters such as Ms Dugger.

Dr. Pfaff knew that giving H.I.V.-positive women and their newborns two anti-AIDS drugs instead of one would reduce the odds that mothers would pass the virus to their babies. For months, he and doctors from other hospitals pleaded with provincial health authorities for permission to use the approach, in a province where a staggering 4 in 10 pregnant women were infected.

“We cannot sit in silence any longer,” they wrote last May.

But South Africa had not yet adopted the two-drug strategy, as recommended by the World Health Organization, and the doctors’ request was rebuffed.

So, Dr. Pfaff made his choice. He raised the money on his own….

Dr. Pfaff’s case has stirred a furious reaction from rural doctors and advocates on AIDS issues, raising questions not only about a doctor’s duties in the public health system, but also about why it took so long for South Africa, a country with more H.I.V.-positive people than any other in the world, to act.

The evidence that two drugs together — AZT plus nevirapine — work better than one has been accumulating since a clinical trial in Thailand was published in 2004 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Even here in South Africa, the approach has worked. The Western Cape Province has deeply reduced mother-to-baby H.I.V. infection rates since 2004 — to less than 5 percent from 22 percent — by using both drugs….

For years, the country’s political leaders have faced harsh international criticism for their resistance to providing antiretroviral medicines. Only after a 2002 court order did the government begin providing nevirapine to prevent women from infecting their babies.

In years past, President Thabo Mbeki defended the country’s consultation of dissident scientists who denied that H.I.V. causes AIDS, while Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang has promoted indigenous remedies, including diets of garlic, beetroot and African potatoes.

Rural doctors in this district say babies were needlessly infected as a result of the government’s slow pace.

“You can’t uninfect them once they’re infected, can you?” said Dr. Victor Fredlund, who has been at the hospital in Mseleni for 27 years.

Unprofessional for twenty three years

The scientific principles we have in mind involve double checking the possibly self serving claims of mainstream scientists and their officials and health workers against the scientific literature, and taking into account the reasoning, evidence and credentials of their critics based on that literature.

When the Times editors realize how hopelessly naive they are and derelict in their professional duty to print this kind of stuff for twenty years, will they feel shame and embarrassment?

Never too late to mend its ways

It seems a great pity that such a fine institution should harbor an enormous flaw in its bosom which will one day result in a very great blow to its image, just when its competitive position is threatened by the ever improving technical standards of the Internet.

This vulnerability is especially dangerous when its last remaining big competitive advantage is the knowledge of its staff of the history and details of great topics such as AIDS, and the depth of their coverage.

Perhaps their Public Editor might respond to news of this historic stumble by the Times so that the paper has a chance to ease out of its position of helping to enforce censorship and ignorance of the scientific dispute in this arena before it is too late.

Instead of allowing this scientific farce to proceed for years with its full support including the mandatory mantra “HIV the virus that causes AIDS” so often that apparently it no longer needs inclusion, even by Ms Dugger in her Mbeki bashing article, the Times could have made a historic contribution in publicizing the problem with the paradigm and ensuring that independent review was not quashed by Dr Anthony Fauci and his cohorts as effectively as Putin deals with Gary Kasparov in the new Russia.

But presumably Larry Altman the medical correspondent at the Times who trained at the CDC is in thrall to Fauci’s edict years ago never to mention Peter Duesberg, and constantly advises his editors that they should pay no attention to the dispute, except to publish scurrilous counterattacks such as the Op Ed piece by Cornell’s John P. Moore a year ago, and articles of this kind informed only by the irrational and inconsistent reigning wisdom on AIDS and Africa.

What we really need to know

If the Times had been more competent over the years in dealing with the science of AIDS and the peer validated dispute over the unlikely and unproven theory that it is caused by an infectious virus, a notion which just happened to be capable of shooting Robert Gallo into a high trajectory in his otherwise uncertain career, not to mention lifted Anthony Fauci to unprecedented and till then unlikely prominence in the view from the White House, then perhaps we would be more informed now as to how two dangerous and sometimes lethal AIDS drugs can manage to prevent mother-to-infant transfer of positive antibody test results and why this double dose of poison should be given to bouncing black babies otherwise in the pink of health.

But apparently Harpers magazine is the only liberal paper willing to cover this tormented topic in the entire United States of America. In its March 2006 issue, readers will find the definitive piece by Celia Farber, Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science, which is as true in every particular as it was when first throughly researched and printed.

And even that valiant periodical has backed off, it seems, bloodied and bowed by the ignorant politics of AIDS, a scene for which the New York Times has to take much of the blame, given its twenty three years of misleading the public on HIV/AIDS.

Of which disgraceful record this latest incompetent piece by Celia Dugger and her editors is but the latest gratuitous example.

Here is the full story:Rift Over AIDS Treatment Lingers in South Africa
or click this:

The New York Times
March 9, 2008
Rift Over AIDS Treatment Lingers in South Africa
By CELIA W. DUGGER

KWANGWANASE, South Africa — Colin Pfaff, a slight doctor imbued with Christian zeal, had reached a moral crossroads.

Dr. Pfaff knew that giving H.I.V.-positive women and their newborns two anti-AIDS drugs instead of one would reduce the odds that mothers would pass the virus to their babies. For months, he and doctors from other hospitals pleaded with provincial health authorities for permission to use the approach, in a province where a staggering 4 in 10 pregnant women were infected.

“We cannot sit in silence any longer,” they wrote last May.

But South Africa had not yet adopted the two-drug strategy, as recommended by the World Health Organization, and the doctors’ request was rebuffed.

So, Dr. Pfaff made his choice. He raised the money on his own.

Then a week after the national health department said in January that it would begin requiring the use of both drugs, health authorities here in KwaZulu-Natal Province charged Dr. Pfaff with misconduct for raising money from a British charity and carrying out the very same preventive treatment “without permission.”

Dr. Pfaff’s case has stirred a furious reaction from rural doctors and advocates on AIDS issues, raising questions not only about a doctor’s duties in the public health system, but also about why it took so long for South Africa, a country with more H.I.V.-positive people than any other in the world, to act.

The evidence that two drugs together — AZT plus nevirapine — work better than one has been accumulating since a clinical trial in Thailand was published in 2004 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Even here in South Africa, the approach has worked. The Western Cape Province has deeply reduced mother-to-baby H.I.V. infection rates since 2004 — to less than 5 percent from 22 percent — by using both drugs.

AIDS advocates are celebrating the government’s new policy. Still, they contend that South Africa, the region’s economic powerhouse, should have put it into practice long ago, but lacked the political will.

Sibani Mngadi, a spokesman for South Africa’s Health Department, disagreed, saying the government took the time needed to review the data and consult various players after the W.H.O. issued its recommendation in 2006. “There were a number of issues to be debated,” he said.

For years, the country’s political leaders have faced harsh international criticism for their resistance to providing antiretroviral medicines. Only after a 2002 court order did the government begin providing nevirapine to prevent women from infecting their babies.

In years past, President Thabo Mbeki defended the country’s consultation of dissident scientists who denied that H.I.V. causes AIDS, while Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang has promoted indigenous remedies, including diets of garlic, beetroot and African potatoes.

Rural doctors in this district say babies were needlessly infected as a result of the government’s slow pace.

“You can’t uninfect them once they’re infected, can you?” said Dr. Victor Fredlund, who has been at the hospital in Mseleni for 27 years.

In this remote, northeastern corner of the country, with its heart-stoppingly big skies and lush coast, doctors see grieving mothers carry babies with AIDS — feverish, vomiting and miserable — back to the hospitals where they were born.

In the doctors’ letter to the provincial authorities in May, Dr. Pfaff, acting medical manager at Manguzi Hospital here, said they thought it was unethical to withhold a treatment used so successfully elsewhere. “We know better options are available and that we have the capacity to deliver them,” he wrote.

In an e-mail message, Dr. Sandile Buthelezi, a provincial health official, acknowledged that the mother-to-baby transmission rate in KwaZulu-Natal, where only nevirapine was used, was 23 percent, while it was less than 5 percent in the Western Cape.

But he also wrote that nevirapine was still the nationally approved regimen and that the cost of adding AZT was not yet factored into the budget. “I am wary of us undermining national just because of what other provinces are doing,” he wrote.

After Dr. Pfaff was charged with misconduct for using the two-drug regimen at Manguzi, advocacy groups took up his cause, as did the political opposition, which seemed only to further rile provincial officials.

“We will not allow anyone to pull vulturistic theatrics to mystify this matter for their own political gain,” the provincial health department said in a Feb. 11 press release.

Peggy Nkonyeni, the African National Congress politician who is the health minister here, visited Manguzi Hospital after the charges were filed. Her spokesman, Desmond Motha, said she told the staff that antiretroviral medicines were not a cure for AIDS, “that the medicine they receive is indeed toxic and that’s why people need to be counseled.”

The Treatment Action Campaign, the country’s most influential AIDS advocacy group, met last month with Mrs. Nkonyeni. Its spokesman, Nathan Geffen, said they were horrified to notice that the minister’s desk had on it only a notepad and a book, “End Aids! Break the Chains of Pharmaceutical Colonialism,” by Dr. Matthias Rath, whose ideas have been denounced by many medical groups and experts.

On his Web site, Dr. Rath contends that antiretroviral drugs attack and destroy the immune system and accuses multinational companies of using poor countries as a marketplace for their “toxic and often deadly drugs.”

Mrs. Nkonyeni’s spokesman said a member of the Treatment Action Campaign disrespectfully told his boss “she should put the book in the dust bin.”

“It’s her right to read the book,” Mr. Motha said angrily

As protests mounted, the Pfaff case became an embarrassment to the governing A.N.C., which in December ousted Mr. Mbeki as its president. The party’s new leaders seem to be seeking to reduce the acrimony between the party and AIDS advocacy groups. It has already reached out to the treatment campaign.

“That’s a huge move forward,” said Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, who was fired by Mr. Mbeki in August as deputy health minister but was often credited with pushing for scientifically based action against AIDS.

Mr. Geffen said that he hoped that the Pfaff case was “the last kick of a dying horse” and that the A.N.C.’s new leaders would take a fresh approach to AIDS.

So it was perhaps not surprising that days after meeting with members of the treatment campaign, the provincial health department confirmed that Mrs. Nkonyeni had decided to withdraw the misconduct charges against Dr. Pfaff.

Her spokesman, Mr. Motha, said Mrs. Nkonyeni managed a program to provide drugs to people with AIDS and would carry out the new guidelines to give both nevirapine and AZT to pregnant women.

Those new rules will be important to Phiwili Ntuli, who is now five months pregnant and working in a sweltering phone shop for $80 a month to support her 19-month-old, H.I.V.-positive son, Mpumelele.

Ms. Ntuli was given nevirapine only when she went into labor in Manguzi Hospital in July 2006. The drug did not work.

Her affectionate son, who is still unable to stand or walk on his own, endured months of sickness before he began taking antiretroviral medicines he will probably need for the rest of his life.

Ms. Ntuli said she was never told that a second drug might have prevented her son’s infection. “Using just one drug makes them guilty,” she said of South Africa’s leaders. “They’re not thinking of the people.”

15 Responses to “Times’ biased view”

  1. cervantes Says:

    Two Excerpts from Dugger NYT article, March 9:


    (1) “In this remote, northeastern corner of the country, with its heart-stoppingly big skies and lush coast, doctors see grieving mothers carry babies with AIDS — feverish, vomiting and miserable — back to the hospitals where they were born.”

    (2) “Those new rules will be important to Phiwili Ntuli, who is now five months pregnant and working in a sweltering phone shop for $80 a month to support her 19-month-old, H.I.V.-positive son, Mpumelele. Ms. Ntuli was given nevirapine only when she went into labor in Manguzi Hospital in July 2006. The drug did not work.
    Her affectionate son, who is still unable to stand or walk on his own, endured months of sickness before he began taking antiretroviral medicines he will probably need for the rest of his life.”
    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    My comments: If the official World Health Organization (WHO) “Resource Limited” antiretroviral drug treatment recommendations for HIV+ infants and children are followed (and the Kwala-Zulu Natal region certainly does qualify); these treatments may be happening without reporting it. Particularly as The Gates Foundation, Bill Clinton, Bono, Doctor Without Borders, The Treatment Action Group, et al. have have made herculean efforts to promote and fund such “care.” HIV+ babies and children thus treated will be getting daily:

    a) AZT (zidovudine) at the equivalent adult-dose strengths of 1,500 to 1,800 milligrams per day; these doses thus taken resulting in 100% mortality of adults in the U.S. and Europe who stayed “compliant.”

    b) Bactrim (aka Septra, Septrin, Cotrimoxazole) that is comprised of trimethoprin and sulfamethoxazole both aimed at stopping the vital-to-creating-new-cells metabolization of folic acid, with WHO expressly starting African babies (and children) at 4 weeks, given indefinitely – until they die. The WHO dose amounts are 3-4 (three to four) times as strong as that given to Canadian infants (but Canadian babies are quickly stopped after 6 weeks, and the last 6 Canadian reporting years have but a single AIDS death to any child under age 15). Bactrim’s purpose is ‘”prophylaxis” for the pneumonia called pcp – a fungal growth in the lungs that thrives on dead tissue (as fungus does) and causes suffocation. Yet, there is a wealth of deadly Bactrim reactions in the Western World — not hard to check out.

    Over six months ago, I brought these deadly WHO protocols to Harvey Bialy’s attention after he first expressed to me that doctors could not possibly administer these lethal regimens; to quote Harvey, “I don’t believe it”. I sent him the official WHO protocol documents. Harvey changed his mind and put them on his now defunct Hank Barnes website, and/or You Bet your Life. And, almost immediately thereafter, Harvey retired from the insane HIV scene.

    All one has to do is read the WHO documents that Harvey did.

  2. Truthseeker Says:

    Sickening, Cervantes, and disheartening. The Times has much to answer for. But what is the reference to the WHO documents at the inimitable Harvey Bialy’s site, Barnesworld, more recently known as You Bet Your Life?

    A search for WHO on that site will produce the Jan 1 2007 post “The WHO’s Blueprint for Genocide”, which may be the post you mean, since it is indeed appalling in implication. But it predated the halt in posting by a year, as we recall, so you may mean a later one.

    What is that implication? It is impossible to state it in any other way that this:

    The doses administered to African babies will reliably kill them all.

    As regards Barnesworld, this laser sharp web blog is by no means defunct, we like to think, even though it is not being added to just now. This unique and invaluable site lives and serves as a vital source of multiple pages of informed commentary at the highest level of intelligence and scientific perception on the bad science of this field, which will certainly show every intelligent enquirer the professional quality and the wisdom of the best critics of HIV/AIDS and its dysfunctional paradigm.

    We highly recommend it to any newcomer exploring the astonishingly complete validity of the paradigm challenge in this field. The link for Barnesworld is always available listed on Science Guardian’s main page, in the right hand column under the heading “Accurate/Helpful”, with an asterisk to indicate it is of the highest quality. Search for either “Barnesworld” or You Bet Your Life”.

    Here is the post referred to, and its comments (boldface added by SG):

    January 01, 2007
    The WHO’s Blueprint for Genocide

    Aztwho_3 The euphemistically titled WHO publication pictured above (and available as a PDF file here) is one of the most frightening compilations I have ever seen. As lawyers are fond of saying — it is a res ipsa loquitor, speaking, in this instance, entire volumes for itself. For these reasons I will refrain from providing much deconstructive comment here, and leave it for the motivated reader to discover whether I write accurately or no.

    I will warn the brave of heart and strong of stomach, however, that you are about to enter a world of bureaucratic language hell that puts George Orwell to shame. A hell in which some of the most toxic drugs ever legally synthesized are authoritatively touted as life prolonging medicines, and where table after table after table provide presumably, arithmetically illiterate “health care” workers with dosage recommendations in which the word “caution” appears exactly four times in a way that almost defies what was once its meaning.

    I will also briefly note the following:

    * The recommended AZT dose for African infants and small children is the same per kg of body weight as the original high-dose AZT that is widely acknowledged to have killed an entire generation of grown men, and which has not been administered for almost a decade (see here for a short history). In the words of Claus Koehnlein, a German physician who has treated AIDS patients for ten years without AZT and its cousins:

    AZT kills everything that depends on DNA replication — that means opportunistic infections and also cancers will respond to the treatment — but at a high price.

    At the same time you are killing the opportunists with AZT, you are killing all dividing cells quite effectively – that includes those in the bone marrow, the very source of our immune cells. That’s the dilemma: In treating AIDS patients with AZT, we bring about the very illness we seek to bring under control. And we all knew, orthodox AIDS doctors and borderline rebels both, that the initial treatment with 1500 mg was an overkill.

    Everybody admits that now. Yes, it was too much. Maybe some people died, but that’s history, that’s the way medicine has always worked. Let’s look forward. Today we have this wonderful triple therapy, and mortality rates are dropping.

    So what, I say. We virtually killed a whole generation of AIDS patients without even noticing it because the symptoms of the AZT intoxication were almost indistinguishable from AIDS. And the placebo control, which could have warned us, was for “ethical reasons” cut off prematurely. Indeed, AZT intoxication has given HIV infection such a lethal outcome that the whole world still believes that HIV is a deadly virus.”

    * The WHO collective that produced this blueprint makes certain to inform its intended users at every opportunity that without these fancifully trade named chemicals the babies and small children in their care will be dead of AIDS in a few short years. South African barrister Anthony Brink, in his definitive study of AZT, puts the truth to that lie:

    “Just where this notion comes from that HIV-positive children tend to die is hard to fathom. In 1995, writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Davis et al reported that “Approximately 14,920 HIV-infected infants were born in the United States between 1978 and 1993. Of these, an estimated 12,240 children were living at the beginning of 1994; 26% were younger than 2 years, 35% were aged 2 to 4 years, and 39% were aged 5 years or older.” Which means that over 80% of children diagnosed HIV-positive at birth are still alive. No prizes for guessing what drug probably killed the others. On 18 May 1999, Dr. Warren Naamara, the Kenya adviser for the UNAIDS programme said, “Many HIV-positive children were now living beyond the usual five years and into their teens, bringing new challenges in the fight against the HIV/AIDS [and] more children born with the virus that causes AIDS now survive beyond the age of ten.” To the chagrin of the ‘AIDS experts’, these children just won’t die on time. How’s this for another stunning death wish: “The UNAIDS official said the new trend posed a threat to the management of disease in the five to 14 years age bracket, which was previously perceived as the hope for the next millennium, since it was largely free of the disease. Naamara…said HIV-positive children in sub-Sahara Africa were likely to contribute to the spread of the disease as most were orphans with no education or skills to derive a livelihood from.” (per PANA report, 20 May 1999.)”

    * Images_14 The final pages, Annex F: Serious Acute and Chronic Toxicities, are not for any but the bravest of hearts and strongest of stomachs. The annex is remarkable for what it does not say as much as for what it does. How any health care practitioner could read through its contents and not need a strong drink afterwards is beyond me.

    Posted by Otis on January 01, 2007 at 06:53 AM | Permalink
    Comments

    Below is a letter I had published in the Natal Mercury in July, to which, as usual, there was no response from anyone. Other national newspapers refused to publish it, also as usual.

    Using the official antenatal clinic rates and the experts conversion rate there were at least 150,000 HIV infants born by 1997 in S.A. but the official StatsSa death totals show effectively zero HIV deaths from 97 to 04 between the ages of 5 to 14.

    Thus the experts argue that the substantial prevalence from 5 to 14 as found by the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), is a result of other causes such as sexual abuse, hospital needle infection etc, a phenomenon apparently unique to S.A. and they will soon begin to die in great numbers unless the life-saving drugs are administered. My letter argues that the figures do not add up whatever the cause of the prevalence.

    “Monday, July 03, 2006
    The Editor,
    The Mercury.

    Sir,

    The latest StatsSA mortality totals for the years 97 to 04 further destroy the credibility of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.

    In March 2003 the MRC published a detailed analysis of child mortality for the year 2000, finding that in the age group 0 to 4, 42,000 of a total of 106,000 deaths were caused by HIV/AIDS, in 5 to 9, 1,000 of a total of 3,900 and 10 to 14, none of 3,800.

    StatsSA reports death totals for 2000 of 39,192 for 0 to 4, 3,610 for 5 to 9 and 3,059 for 10 to 14, and a registration completeness of 37%, 92% and 80% respectively, based on the MRC comprehensive analysis. It reports 0 to 4 increasing to 56,808, 5 to 9 to 5,907 and 10 to 14 to 3,860 by the year 2004.

    From the annual totals, even disregarding the population growth and any improvement in registration, the maximum total of HIV deaths in the 5 years to 04 is 8,000 for 5 to 9 and effectively zero for 10 to 14. In addition, 15 to 19 increases by only 1,400 over the 5 year period.

    In their study of Nov 02 the HSRC found 6.2% or 300,000 HIV+ in the age group 5 to 9 and 4.7% or 200,000 in 10 to 14. In their later study of Nov 2005, they found these totals to be 214,000 (4.5%) and 80,000 (1.7%) respectively. Arithmetically the prevalence could not have exceeded 88,000 in 5 to 9 in 2000 and it would be remarkable if these had moved through to 10 to 14 without any significant increase in deaths or any new incidence in 10 to 14, despite the HSRC reporting 200,000 in 02. Conversely if 5 to 9 was much less than 88,000 in 2000 it is remarkable that the HSRC, with its expertise in scientific sampling, reported 300,000 in 02.

    Using the annual antenatal clinic HIV rates, the annual birth statistics, the experts’ conversion rate of 30% and applying the MRC’s ratio of deaths up to age 4, there should have been an increase in HIV deaths from 0 to 4 between 98 and 01 of 18,000, yet StatsSA report a total increase of only 3,000. In 03 and 04 when the mother to child transmission rate was reportedly halved by the administration of ARV drugs, StatsSA report an increase in deaths of 10,000 over 02.

    Yours faithfully,

    Chris Rawlins,
    Secretary, Treatment Information Group.”

    Posted by: Chris Rawlins | January 01, 2007 at 10:19 AM

    We are in Guinea, West Africa, conducting a sport’s clinic on behalf of The International Olympic Medalists Association, and we knew about the WHO guidelines before.

    But we want to take a minute to ask our favorite TV personality to read them, and after she has, to ask her what she thinks then about her efforts to help our materially less fortunate brothers and sisters in The Motherland.

    Peace & Love in ’07

    Lee and Ron

    Posted by: Lee Evans and Ron Freeman | January 01, 2007 at 10:57 AM

    I think that Fischl et al. were blinded by the dogma hiv -> AIDS and by the fact that at the beginning of the treatment with AZT the number of T4 cells increased. We can indeed explain this initial increase by the chemical properties of the drug, as I do in this essay:

    Biological critiques of AZT’s alleged mode of action

    What is perhaps most horrible is that glutathione metabolism of poorly nourished babies is badly altered, as are the amounts of selenium and other minerals. Adding AZT to this awful biochemical imbalance is like throwing gasoline on a fire.

    Posted by: Jean Umber | January 01, 2007 at 12:20 PM

    This is an unpublished article of mine that concerns the matter of this posting.

    This is the US pediatric killing regimen, essentially identical to the WHO’s.

    Posted by: David Burd | January 02, 2007 at 10:02 AM

    Sooner or later the HIV and AIDS orthodoxy and its multinational pharmaceutical supporters may devise newer, more sophsiticated surveillance categories that measure mortality and morbidity in Africa and thereby manage to capture almost all deaths on the continent.

    New possibilities might include TB/AIDS, malaria/AIDS, malnutrition/AIDS, pneumonia/AIDS and diarrheal/AIDS … those could probably account for upwards of 80% of all African mortality.

    The remainder would be attributed to traffic accidents, gunshot wounds, bodily traumas, diseases of old age, and civil disturbances, but even some of those might be considered “an AIDS-related condition.”

    Accurate, verifiable statistics placed “on the table” for public scrutiny often mean little to adherents of the HIV and AIDS orthodoxy. Yet only they and their “front line AIDS fighters” know the real truth.

    Forty years ago white racists in South Africa routinely claimed that Africans were “breeding like flies.” Nowadays, AIDS alarmists piously intone that “Africans are dying like flies.”

    Curiously enough, the latest statistics (May 2006 – Statistics South Africa Report #P0309.3) on the underlying causes of death in South Africa list so- called “HIV diseases” as the #21 cause of death, accounting for 2.3% of all deaths, down from 2.6% in 2000.

    The data on death rates from “HIV diseases” from 1997 to 2004 in South Africa also reveals interesting anomalies from select provinces:

    1) In 1997 in KwaZulu-Natal Province, “HIV diseases” accounted for2.2% of all its deaths; in 2004, it was 2.3%.

    2) In 1997 in Mpumalanga Province, “HIV diseases” accounted for 2.3% of all its deaths; in 2004 it was >2.2%.

    3) In 1997 in Limpopo Province, “HIV diseases” accounted for 2.3% of all its deaths; in 2004, it was >2.0%.

    4) In 1997 in Free State Province, “HIV diseases” accounted for3.9% of all its deaths; in 2004, it was >2.1%.

    And even for South Africa as a whole, in 1997 “HIV disease” was said to account for 2.0% of all deaths; in 2004 it had risen to 2.3%, but that figure was down from 2.6% in 1999.

    There is no way of ascertaining from this data exactly how any attending physician, health care worker, or coroner actually knew for certain that so-> called “HIV disease” was the underlying cause of death.

    I leave it to adherents of the AIDS orthodoxy to explain how that works.

    Finally, the actual definition of an “African AIDS orphan” varies enormously amongst the conventional view of AIDS.

    Some say it refers to anyone who has lost BOTH parents to some vague, often elastic definition of “AIDS.” Other researchers and other countries say an orphan is someone who has lost ONE or both parents to “AIDS.” While still others insist that an orphan is anyone who has lost ONE or BOTH parents to AIDS or has a parent that is “suffering” from “AIDS.”

    There are probably some AIDS researchers who deem any African child with a running nose and soiled clothing, seen walking around a village without adult supervision as an “AIDS orphan.” Far-fetched? Not really……..

    Posted by: Charles Geshekter | January 03, 2007 at 11:32 AM

    Regarding Canada and Aids, a great deal of very enlightening information is becoming available. For example, Canada’s ever diminishing Aids deaths are now totalling 60 to 70 per year (with only the very rare child death recorded — possibly due to much more sane prescription guidelines for the pharmacologically potent agents that are administered “medicinally” in some quarters.)

    These totals include as Aids’ deaths those having some
    very specific diseases (such as fatal PCPP), but not needing any proof of Hiv presence, neither antibodies nor RNA copies, or p24 antigen. Thus,’presumptive’ Hiv/Aids deaths seem to be included in these meager tallies.

    However, there is another classification called “Hiv related deaths,” that now tally about 400 per year in Canada (Not Aids deaths per se).

    This category is based on the ICD-10 (International Classification of Disease, Revision 10) that lists dozens and dozens of diseases, including cancers, that in conjunction with having ‘hiv-positivity’ get them classified as “Hiv-infection deaths”.

    According to this logic anybody with “Hiv disease” will eventually die from Hiv/Aids no matter what the proximal cause, including accidental death, that can be reclassified as “Aids-related suicide”.

    For any one strenuously interested in these numbers, the latest official figures are compiled in this 2+ MB PDF.

    Posted by: Phil Seeman | January 03, 2007 at 07:51 PM

    The following was just posted at Tony Woodlief’s weblog:

    Friday, January 5, 2007

    Lying as Business Strategy

    Those of you who take The Wall Street Journal probably caught Wednesday’s story about the efforts of Abbott Laboratories, a pharmaceutical company, to sell more of a very lucrative AIDS drug. The challenge for Abbott was that one of their lower-margin drugs was widely used in conjunction with a competitor’s drug, in lieu of a more expensive Abbott uber-drug. The Journal obtained documents revealing some of the strategies Abbott considered for reducing use of its lower-margin drug.

    I’ll say up front that I’m not someone who thinks drug companies make too much money — quite the contrary, it’s precisely in critical fields like medicine that we want to see large profits, so that more brains and resources are attracted to them. So I have no problem with a company trying to make a buck, or a billion bucks.

    According to memos obtained by the Journal, however, Abbott executives considered ideas like taking the lower-margin drug off the market and telling people that they had to do so in order to ship it to poor countries in Africa. Another alternative was to convert the pill form to a syrup that they described as tasting “like someone else’s vomit.”

    Caught out by the press, Abbott did the usual corporate spin, claiming that the executives were “just brainstorming.”

    Apparently, lying is a plausible enough option at Abbott Laboratories that its executives feel comfortable considering it as a possible action item. That’s what Abbott admits, in effect.

    I’m not sure how one cuts out such a cancer once it has permeated an organization’s culture. And if anyone doubts that Abbott’s culture is threatened by a lack of integrity, consider the coda to this tale: after settling on a strategy of raising the price of its lower-margin drug by 400%, Abbott tried to counter outcries by posting on its website misleading data about the drug’s cost compared to alternatives. The FDA later ordered it to take the misleading information down.

    To be fair, one never knows, when reading a newspaper account, whether all the relevant facts are being presented. What seems clear, however, is that Abbott executives considered telling a disgusting lie about helping poor people in Africa, and that they see no problem contemplating such a lie.

    People like this are a far greater enemy to markets and liberty than anyone in the hapless Democratic party, because they reinforce stereotypes of corporate executives as unprincipled brigands. They should be ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately, that’s probably unlikely.

    posted by Woodlief

    Posted by: Dean Esmay | January 05, 2007 at 03:24 PM

  3. cervantes Says:

    Thank you Truthseeker for the extensive elaboration and very good stats from other sources. Many may know already that Secretary Chris Rawlins’ Treatment Information Group was founded and is driven by South African barrister Anthony Brink, an ally of Mbeki and a genuine hero for my two cents worth.. For those new to this, just google ‘brink tig’ and put on a pot of coffee.

    The WHO Antiretroviral document in Barnesworld (you provided in your comment above) was indeed what I had sent Harvey Bialy over 15 months ago, when he first exclaimed the impossibility(!) of being told of these certain lethal treatments. Upon receipt and quickly acknowledging its consequences, he thankfully passed in via Barnesworld with his genocide comment. But really, how many actually went on to read it?

    As to Bactrim (aka co-trimoxazole, cotrimoxazole, Septra, Septrim, TMP-SMX, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) and why I mentioned it: BEFORE the infants get the more massive AZT doses explicitely ordered by WHO, from birth they first get 6 weeks of AZT** at the equivalent-adult-dose of 500 milligrams starting the day they are born to an HIV+ mother.

    IF then these tiny infants at 6 weeks are determined to be negative (HIV-wise) then the AZT stops. But, if ‘positive’ they then proceed on with the prior mentioned adult-equivalent 1,500-1,800 milligrams per day. To top off this madness, starting at 4 weeks after birth, because they were born to HIV+ mothers, they are given (inexplicably large, 2-4 times given to Canadian babies depending on what year protocol is compared) toxic doses of Bactrim as this is supposed to provide prophylaxis for pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (now called Jiroveci pneumonia).

    And, until they are determined to be definitely HIV-uninfected (which may take quite a long time, depending on judgement, ‘indeterminate’ status), they are given Bactrim open-ended, at the critical early months of life when Bactrim can have its worst chemical assault, i.e. inhibiting the metabolization of folic acid that is absolutely necessary for synthesis of new cells. How can havoc not be wreaked upon the infants? How can they possibly survive?

    The answer is they don’t: The Obimbo et al. study published (Lancet, I recall) about 5 years ago (in Nairobi, Kenya, and the mothers/babies cared for in Nairobi’s best hospital) cited a cohort of HIV+ infants born to HIV+ mothers having a mortality of over 50% by the age of two, and their main drug explicitly cited by Obimbo was Bactrim, given diligently for the entire 2 years of the study (these infants remained “HIV+”). Of course, the deaths were blamed on HIV. Pertinently, these babies were NOT given AZT (though most all the mothers while pregnant were). The WHO document on Bactrim dosing (the equivalent of the WHO ARV document above) can be supplied, but anybody really interested can easily find it.

    Thus, if AZT was not killing the Obimbo babies, the finger points directly at Bactrim. In this regard British journalist Brian Deer has for many years a massive website detailing the horrors of Bactrim, if anybody cares to follow this lead. And, there are many establishment cautions and warnings — .

    The vital point to be made about Bactrim is that countries such as Canada, Britain, etc., (and nicely brought up by Phil Seeman above) are very cautious about the lethality of Bactrim and other drugs, and I daresay take a closely monitored infant off them immediately upon adverse events — most certainly NOT the case in Nairobi by Obimbo, as she explicitly states her puzzlement that Bactrim was not particularly effective, whereas, in fact, it is certain Bactrim did just what it was supposed to do.

    Summing up, the WHO drug therapies, antiretroviral or just anti-bacterial, mandated for infants coming from HIV+ mothers clearly and unambiguously are a death sentence.

    **Our U.S. NIH/NIAID official AZT therapy protocols for infants born to HIV+ mothers (yes, Mildred) are the exact same as the WHO mandates: the equivalent-adult-dose of 500 milligrams a day for 6 weeks, starting the day the infant is born. I might add, that the now dropped HAART (in favor of the latest Atripla one-a-day) that held sway for 10 years comprised 600 milligrams of AZT a day among its other god-awful constituents including 2,200 milligrams of protease inhibitor. So, now no American adults are now given AZT at all because of its lethality, except(!) official estimates cite an annual 7,000+ pregnant HIV+ women are, as their infants are. The result? The U.S., per the CDC’s last 5 reporting years, totaled 150 pediatric AIDS deaths (to age 15), compared to Canada’s single pediatric AIDS death. None of this counts the spontaneous abortions, congenital malformations, future time bombs ticking away from scrambled genes/chromosomes from a mother/fetus/infant being treated with AZT – as continues in Western countries.

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    To all readers of this blog:

    Please note the above comment which states again that

    the drugs being administered to the new generation of African babies under the HIV/AIDS regime are reliably lethal.

    All involved with establishing and cooperating with the hostile resistance to review of the HIV-causes-AIDS paradigm are evidently, whether they realize it or not, visiting death upon newborn Africans in numbers which will rise to millions unless this extraordinary scientific insanity is stopped and reviewed by objective outside examiners.

    All concerned with this clearly racist (see above) activity should try to bring the situation to the attention of Clinton, Gates, Soros, Obama, Paterson, Sharpton and/or any influential actor on this scene, referencing this blog and the key sources listed on the main page of this blog, especially Peter Duesberg’s site, Harvey Bialy’s You Bet Your Life? (Barnesworld) site, David Crowe’s Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society site, the Rethinking AIDS (Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis site, Darin Brown’s The AIDS Wiki, Henry Bauer’s HIV/AIDS Skepticism Blog and others asterisked in the section “Accurate/Helpful” of the blogroll, especially the more than thirty books on the topic, including Peter Duesberg’s, Harvey Bialy’s, Henry Bauer’s and Rebecca Culshaw’s.

    For comparison, the AIDS Truth site of the AIDS scientist and unwitting closet dissident backer John P. Moore of Cornell should be referenced for its bias and hostility towards review, which reliably reveal to politically sophisticated readers (such as the staff of any Congressional committee empowered to investigate this debate) that the resistance to review is politically and sociologically motivated rather than scientifically based.

  5. MacDonald Says:

    TS, appreciate the call to arms, but all I can say is

    FAKED OUT AGAIN:

    http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080312006354&newsLang=en

    And if you didn’t catch the drift, look here:

    http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-03-11-voa92.cfm

    Don’t expect any help from the good old European Union either:

    http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=182523

    For lazy readers: More focus on HIV, more focus on drugs, especially for babies, less focus on real health issues, all foreign aid to Africa conditional on compliance with EU and PEPFAR enforced drug regimens.

    Have a nice weekend.

  6. cervantes Says:

    Thanks MacDonald,

    What I get from the web threads you cited (and as I read them), is that the some in the U.S. Congress are advocating $50 billion over the next 5 years for Africa known as PEPFAR (Presidents Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief), and not broken down to particulars. As for the smaller $30 Billion PEPFAR plan over the same 5 years, it is mentioned that $9 Billion is specifically for malaria. (Actually, no surprise, I’ve been aware of most all this).

    As clearly stated and pie-charted by the Kiaser Family Foundation for the last 10 years, the U.S. Federal budget for HIV/AIDS had reached almost 1% of the entire U.S. Federal Budget. With PEPFAR of $3 billion, this came to $23 Billion for year 2007 (the entire budget was $2.8 trillion).

    Increasing PEPFAR to $10 billion per year puts this amount MORE than 1% of the U.S. Federal Budget, with most of this $10 billion, per year, going for lethal antiretroviral drugs.

    I mainly elaborate on dollar figures to illustrate the immensity of the iatrogenic momentum taking place: Most of these PEPFAR $billions of dollars are going to literally poison infants and adults; these monies are not being spent for public sanitation, clean water, nutrition, etc. (which, I assert, are issues best done locally, without outside intervention).

    The basic point remains: How can the lethal WHO antiretroviral therapy regimens (also such as Bactrim) be exposed and stopped? Truthseeker has sounded the alarm — keep it going.

  7. Truthseeker Says:

    Increasing PEPFAR to $10 billion per year puts this amount MORE than 1% of the U.S. Federal Budget, with most of this $10 billion, per year, going for lethal antiretroviral drugs.

    I mainly elaborate on dollar figures to illustrate the immensity of the iatrogenic momentum taking place: Most of these PEPFAR $billions of dollars are going to literally poison infants and adults; these monies are not being spent for public sanitation, clean water, nutrition, etc. (which, I assert, are issues best done locally, without outside intervention).

    Thank you Cervantes, for bringing home this incredible development.

    Today we had a chat at a Park Avenue party with the esteemed editor of a leading and reputable science journal who is familiar with Peter Duesberg and his work, having published it. He is still under the impression, however, that Duesberg is wrong about HIV and AIDS. He is a good natured, intelligent and experienced science editor who we am certain would think otherwise if he had ever imagined that Duesberg could be right, contrary to the impression he has been given by all his contacts in science, and actually read through the basic material available, as listed above. Or, since he is obviously by his role in life, a quick study, he would have changed his mind if he had simply skimmed through the references we gave above.

    We still hope we have influenced him by referencing this blog to come here and skim some of our posts, and perhaps this will lead to him looking a little further into it, motivated at the very least by his presumed desire to be sophisticated about these matters, and not to be misled by what we told him were very great politics in this sphere. Interestingly, he admitted he had long been a little skeptical of Stanley Prusiner’s prions, but in the end decided that the gaps in evidence had been filled in, as he seems to have imagined they have been filled in with HIV/AIDS.

    We assured him they have not and urged him to sample the sheer informed intelligence of the critics in this paradigm dispute. Perhaps he will, but it indicated to us yet again the inevitable result of the structure of science and media in this day and age when even sophisticated editors like other top executives have to rely on what they are told by their contacts and their staff, rather than spare the time to go into the matter thoroughly themselves.

    The public interest in even great matters such as this vast misdirection of the national budget would seem to hinge on the simple human reality of who happens to know whom sufficiently well to take the word of a skeptic against the mainstream opinion which otherwise carries them along rudderless in the flowing river of collegiality and shared opinion.

    Unfortunately in this case there is no reason to think that we changed the direction of his relationship to Duesberg’s view of HIV/AIDS, though you never know, and this site exists precisely for that reason – to back up any conversation with any person of influence that the humble blog host encounters in person and manages to bend the ear of same, which we always try to do in a reassuringly collegial fashion, a difficult trick, comparable say to walking a tightrope between the great towers of the WTC when they were still up.

    One is always left with the concern as to whether it might not have been better simply to assert flatly without any concession to current opinion that “Oh no, Duesberg is quite right, no question about it, never has been!” but of course after the initial surprised acquiescence the psychological effect quickly becomes a retreat to safety and the cognitive dissonance is resolved by detecting quackery in the person (us) who previously had seemed to them quite collegial and reliable.

    Thus the false general opinion is protected and bolstered by the simple social fact that it is usually not possible to contradict people’s preconceptions with any success if they have not first learned to trust you over a period of time, and none of us relish being rated the village fool. However, there is hope we always feel if people have had some experience of being skeptical themselves, as in this case, for whatever reason, and if they will somehow be motivated to do a little reading into the other side of an issue.

    Of course everyone here knows this but we mention it merely to see if someone has found some way around this eternal barrier to independent thinkers.

  8. cervantes Says:

    Of the PEPFAR $10 billion cited several times now, of course most of this would go to salaries, infrastructure, abstinence teaching, preaching couples should maintain fidelity, condoms(!), logistics, administration, etc., with the actual drug chemicals being but a few $billion at the tip of the spear (then there’s the payoffs and inevitable corruption). Nevertheless, its fair to say the majority of budgeted totals are to get the drugs into human flesh.

    As Rian Malan of South Africa expressed so well about 5 years ago in an article in The Spectator, when he brought of up fallacies and dramatic dishonesty of the South African HIV/AIDS at social occasions, inevitably the result would be making new enemies, losing old friends, and angrily ended dinner parties. This is known to us all I’m sure.

    We know why: usually politically savvy, educated people, most all having an innate pride of self do not want to even think they have been duped in such a monumental way for the last 25 years, especially when so many have actually made some of the most important decisions of their life and health after accepting HIV=death (courting, marriage, advising their children, job or career decisions).

    My success with an occasional colleague (the professional world of patents, ironically the system that gave Gallo motivation to charge ahead, and cleverly get rich with his antibody test patents he slammed in back in 1984) has stemmed from giving a single, short pertinent document that is an easy read, but of course gets right to the point of the HIV fallacy.

    A long, detailed account such as by Farber in Harpers, now 2 years ago, is too much for most busy people to wade through. With literally thousands of wonderful short pieces to choose from, one has to know their audience – maybe a Liam Scheff piece on the murderous antiviral pumped into orphans, for instance, or any number of very readable Duesberg* interviews, particularly his Alumni Address at Berkeley about 15 years ago. *But since most people have been told Duesberg has been “discredited” this may be a poor choice!

    The very rare piece in an occasional major American newspaper (the Sacramento Bee and the San Diego Union come to mind) has been a personality interview with someone like David Rasnick or others, and usually have caveats that cast establishment doubt on the interviewee.

    My hope is that the sheer volume of U.S. govt. tax dollars (now $225 billion since 1985, the funding to be at least $30 billion for 2009 as noted above) must, some day, wake up some brave editor at some major U.S. paper. I keep thinking that ONE PERCENT of the entire Federal Budget for HIV/AIDS has to shake up editors, if they knew this.

    The Kaiser Family Foundation annual pie chart explicitly, dramatically, citing the U.S. HIV/AIDS budget is the perfect graphic, as it is not some series of line items that go on endlessly. See http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/7029-03.pdf for this pie chart spending in year 2006. What is amusing (gotta find some laughs somewhere) is Kaiser Foundation text that HIV/AIDS funding “represents less than one percent of the budget.” They can’t say that anymore.

    Editors used to advocate ‘follow the money,’ but now they have accepted being lapdogs to Fauci. This chapter of journalism will someday be a really big, successful book and movie. But, when? Maybe the hard, chilling facts in the WHO treatment documents can break the ice.

    One last point about editors (and their paucity of personal knowledge of medicines): They have blithely accepted that all the lethal drugs lauded by Fauci, and spelled out in the WHO documents are “good” things. After all they kill viruses (or retroviruses), don’t they? This nomenclature has been a marketing coup unsurpassed as to mis-representing lethal, murderous drugs as something that sounds good to the ear. When will the newsworld actually grasp the unequivocal lethal effects of antivirals/antiretrovirals, no different than cancer chemotherapies if given without letup?

    Please pardon that most of this is already known to lots of us, but perhaps new readers of this site will benefit from our somewhat repetitive thoughts.

  9. Rezaf Says:

    Recently I’ve heard that it is possible to eradicate malaria. Or at least it is what they claim.

    (Mathematic Model to eradicate malaria)
    http://ultimahora.publico.clix.pt/noticia.aspx?id=1322296&idCanal=13

    Basically what they say is that WHO should start pushing anti-malarial drugs on asymptomatic and non-infected people too, instead of providing proper sanitation conditions and food to the target population.

    And I’ve also heard that artemisinin has great potential as anti-malarial. I suppose this is not new to you all.

    http://ultimahora.publico.clix.pt/noticia.aspx?id=1322247&idCanal=13

    Sorry, it is in portuguese.

    Suppose that malaria is in fact eradicated as it is predicted(and I don’t see why it should not), one could expect a accompanying decrease of “AIDS” or seropositivity incidence in african people, as malaria can interfere with the so-called HIV tests. Imagine that the same is also accomplished for TB. Of course, it is very likely that, given the unquestionable status of the Meme, few will question the real reason of that strange decrease in seropositivity in African people. The mainstream will may just use this decrease in “AIDS” to reinforce the claim that ARV therapy is really “doing its job” (and will reinforce the drug pushing, thus increasing “AIDS” again). It seems that we are stuck in a money-making loop, where the control and eradication of REAL diseases that interfere with the tests may ultimately reinforce the ARV pushing. Let’s just hope I am wrong.

  10. MacDonald Says:

    Cervantes, TS,

    I wasn’t talking about $$$, but this from the first link:

    The Senate Bill, introduced earlier today by Senator Thomas Coburn, M.D., (R, OK) and Senator Richard Burr (R, NC) would improve treatment and testing for HIV/AIDS by focusing on elements of the original bill that have been eliminated in the House Version of the bill which is set to be marked up by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Thursday. The pending House version eliminates the requirement that 55% of PEPFAR funds be spent on treatment, a provision that AHF believes has been key to the success of President Bush’s landmark legislation over the past five years.

    “The American AIDS relief effort is a true humanitarian effort that receives widespread bipartisan support,” said Michael Weinstein, President of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. “We need to pause and remember why we started PEPFAR to begin with; to bring lifesaving treatment to those in need, to prevent others from becoming infected, and to rid the world of the scourge of AIDS. We thank Senators Coburn and Burr for introducing this legislation that restores the heart of the PEPFAR global AIDS program.”

    Of note is the 55% minimum requirement for treatment (drugs) regardless of the actual amount. They want to reinforce the treatment (drugs) component at a point when people like Halperin and international reports mentioned on this blog as well are beginning to push for shift to a broader health perspective.

    It is correct that in Bush’s private neo-con world they also want to divert funds to “education” and advice on good Judaeo-Christian virtues (circumcision and abstinence), but this is not the thrust. That is why I provided the second link where the overall agenda is being revealed:

    In its budget, the Bush administration proposes a reduction in spending from $741 million to $587 million for global health, family planning and infectious disease programs, while increasing funding for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment … While it increases funds for HIV/AIDS, Lowey notes that the president’s request cuts $251 million from 2008 levels for health programs she and others say complement HIV/AIDS efforts. Administration officials say they faced tough spending decisions, noting a shift in priorities from health to HIV/AIDS and malaria.

    The shift to HIV/AIDS is to be a shift towards more treatment (drugs), as can be read in the first link.

    The EU’s decision to tie all aid to Africa to HIV/AIDS, will contribute to forcing African (especially South Africa’s) governments to go along with the “shift in priorities” to HIV/AIDS and the drug solution, and away from other health issues. That’s the part I showed by linking the third article where Msimang voices exactly those concerns.

    What this amounts to is a massive campaign by the usual suspects to keep Africa in the previous century HIV/AIDS-wise.

  11. Truthseeker Says:

    Please pardon that most of this is already known to lots of us, but perhaps new readers of this site will benefit from our somewhat repetitive thoughts.

    May we beg all informed and perceptive posters who are up to speed on this issue (the true status of the HIV/AIDS paradigm in science and society, not only unproven but more demonstrably invalid with every passing year) not to stint on underlining and repeating what is obvious to them, blatant though the truth may be and repetitive though the debunking may seem, because to newcomers the sheer nakedness of this Emperor is indeed quite invisible, given the splendid imaginary uniform with which the Virus has been clothed by the expensive tailors sent by Anthony Fauci, who also provides the official spectacles through which editors, writers and the activists crowd view the grand spectacle of its global parade all the more vividly.

    In fact, the correct mode of expression in all comments of this nature should be the classic speech writing style of saying what you are going to say, saying it, then saying what you have just said. Preferably in words of as few syllables as possible.

  12. MacDonald Says:

    I trust that’s what I just did – finally?

  13. cervantes Says:

    Mac, thanks for the info.

    Rezaf, Don’t forget Rian Malan wrote extensively how modeling based on poor inputs such as ELISA tests for KwalaZulu-Natal pregnant women ended up hopelessly wrong on South African AIDS tallies that seemed never to arrive. As to conquering malaria, well, time will tell — but if its based on any type of pharma drugs, then its hard to believe there’s any objectivity involved (please pardon my cynicism).

    I hope the Kaiser document/graphic (http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/7029-03.pdf) has been now observed by many. If PEPFAR goes to $10 billion/year for 2009 as seems likely, then the annual Fed budget for HIV/AIDS will be $30 billion +, in a total budget of $3 trillion. Thus, the one percent.

  14. cervantes Says:

    From MacDonald’s earlier quote: “The American AIDS relief effort is a true humanitarian effort that receives widespread bipartisan support,” said Michael Weinstein, President of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. “We need to pause and remember why we started PEPFAR to begin with; to bring lifesaving treatment to those in need, to prevent others from becoming infected, and to rid the world of the scourge of AIDS.

    My reaction: About Michael Weinstein, President of his foundation, I can only guess he is richly paid (trickled directly down by the U.S. Federal Budget and drug company funds), and utterly ignorant of drugs and their actual effects.

    The London Sunday Times has constantly demonstrated that a major publication can break away from the crowd (as by Neville Hodgkinson way back 12 years ago on AIDS). Can this happen in the American press?

  15. MacDonald Says:

    MORE HILLARY CARE:

    The U.S. Senate passed an amendment by Senators Gordon H. Smith (R-OR) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as part of the 2009 Budget Resolution which creates a reserve fund to expand access to vital medical services for low-income HIV-positive individuals.

    “Over a million Americans—including over 100,000 in New York —are living with HIV or AIDS, and no one should go without treatment regardless of their circumstances. This measure is a step toward ensuring that individuals are receiving vital care, and ETHA provides resources to low-income patients to combat this illness in its crucial early stages, before they grow sicker and require costlier care,” said Senator Clinton.

    http://www.hvpress.net/news/123/ARTICLE/3760/2008-03-16.html

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 386 access attempts in the last 7 days.