AIDS denialism

Discussion in 'Conspiracy' started by political squaw, Jan 31, 2009.

  1. shaggie

    shaggie Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    19
    Yes, Mbeki tried the denialist approach and it was a disaster. It resulted in a loss of life comparable to that of the civilian loss of the Iraq war. That is why there was fallout and why they haven't tried it again.

    .

     
  2. shaggie

    shaggie Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    19
  3. shaggie

    shaggie Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    19
    (from the website WhatActuallyHappened)

    UV Exposure and Skin Cancer: Inventing the Myth

    It is perhaps the greatest manufactured myth of modern times: The general public has been led to believe that UV exposure causes skin cancer. It will be revealed in this article that UV exposure doesn't cause skin cancer. Sunscreen is what actually causes cancer. The sunscreen industry, groups such as the government-funded American Cancer Society, and the medical establishment in general have colluded all these years to mislead the public about UV for the purpose of making a handsome profit off the sale of sunscreen products and cancer treatments.

    The annual sales of sunscreen in the U.S. and Europe is currently about $100 million. Many sunscreen products are patented and are manufactured by publicly traded companies that are obliged to make a profit, proving that the industry is in it only for the money. Organizations such as the American Cancer Society and the pharmaceutical industry receive government funding to study cancer. It's in their interest to promote a product that, unbeknownst to the public, actually causes cancer.

    An historical review shows the fallacy of the claim that the use of sunscreen helps prevent skin cancer. Sunscreen back in 1980 generally had an SPF of less than ten, not nearly sufficient to protect a person fully from the UV that supposedly causes cancer. Sunscreen denialist Dr. U.V. Goode has pointed out that the industry doctored results to make it appear that suncreen blocks UV. One portion of a research paper by Dr. S.P. Eff, a member of the sunscreen establishment, acknowledged that sunscreen lost its UV shielding effectiveness after perspiration and swimming, rendering it useless.

    Other research has shown that a percentage of people who used sunscreen products as directed still developed skin cancer years later. Dr. U.V. Goode has adroitly noted that skin cancer cases have increased markedly during the past two decades. If all of that sunscreen was protecting people, skin cancer incidence should have dropped. On the contrary, the increase in the incidence of skin cancer during the past two decades correlates with the increased use of sunscreen. This is further evidence that sunscreen is not only useless as a UV protector but that it actually causes skin cancer.

    Goode has correctly shown that there is no single seminal research paper that conclusively shows a cause-effect relationship between UV exposure and skin cancer with a 100% assurance. UV exposure as a cause of skin cancer has never been truly isolated.

    Dr. Goode has also elucidated that the 70s was an era when chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer was being aggressively developed. It should come as no surprise that the 80s was a decade of colluding to promote sunscreen products that actually cause skin cancer. What better way to capitalize off the investment in chemotherapy during the 70s than to promote a product that causes cancer and results in billions of dollars of money spent on research and treatment by groups such as ACS and the pharmaceutical industry?

    Dr. Goode was a respected researcher early in his career and was responsible for developments in the technology of sunscreen. A competing researcher at the time, Dr. S.P. Eff, stole his sunscreen idea and patented it. Dr. Eff receives about one dollar royalty for every bottle of sunscreen sold. Fortunately, in his retirement years, Dr. Goode has recognized the wrongness of his ways during the early years of his career and has become an iconoclast critical of Dr. Eff and an ardent supporter of the sunscreen denialist community. It is unfortunate the Dr. Goode is being unfairly persecuted by the government and watchdog groups for the truth that he is trying to tell.

    To oppose those in industry and government who are interested only in profit, people should spend more time in the sun without sunscreen. It darkens the skin which protects it from the UV. Mothers and their children should adopt this new approach and become an example for others. Those in third world regions such as Africa should adopt the denialist approach, as they have the least amount of money for sunscreen products and the treatments needed for the cancer it causes.

    Furthermore, sunscreen denialists should make every effort to find their way into positions of political power so that they can exert this new belief onto the general public. The general public should be encouraged to not have blind faith in the sunscreen industry and the information disseminated by groups such as the ACS. Once implemented, the denialist policy will reduce the incidence of skin cancer, thwart the greed of the sunscreen industry, and save the general public billions of dollars in needless sunscreen purchases and cancer treatment.

    For more information on this groundbreaking revelation, please visit Dr. Goode's Cancer Myths website where you can purchase his latest book and video: "The Real Cause of Skin Cancer That Those Other Groups Don't Want You To Know About."

    In our next article, it will be revealed that UV-protective eyewear, not UV, is what really causes cataracts.

    .
     
  4. political squaw

    political squaw Member

    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    2
    HIV/AIDS Supporters
    ===================================================================

    There is an abundance of evidence showing HIV is the cause of AIDS. With very few exceptions, the human immunodeficiency virus itself or antibodies to HIV are detected in people with AIDS. Studies of people who are HIV-positive show they are more likely to develop AIDS symptoms and more likely to die at younger ages than people without HIV. Scientists can now describe in great detail how HIV infection occurs and causes AIDS.


    HIV destroys CD4 positive (CD4+) T cells, which are white blood cells crucial to maintaining the function of the human immune system. As the virus attacks those cells, the person infected with HIV is less equipped to fight off infection and disease ultimately resulting in the development of AIDS.
    Most people who are infected with HIV can carry the virus for years before sufficient damage to the immune system results in the development of AIDS. However, there is a strong connection between high levels of HIV in the blood and the decline in CD4+ T cells and the development of AIDS. Antiretroviral medicines can reduce the amount of virus in the body, preserve CD4+ T cells and dramatically slow the destruction of the immune system.

    HIV is a retrovirus

    HIV belongs to a class of viruses called retroviruses. Retroviruses are RNA (ribonucleic acid) viruses, and in order to replicate (duplicate). they must make a DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) copy of their RNA. It is the DNA genes that allow the virus to replicate.
    Like all viruses, HIV can replicate only inside cells, commandeering the cell's machinery to reproduce. Only HIV and other retroviruses, however, once inside a cell, use an enzyme called reverse transcriptase to convert their RNA into DNA, which can be incorporated into the host cell's genes.
    Slow viruses

    HIV belongs to a subgroup of retroviruses known as lentiviruses, or "slow" viruses. The course of infection with these viruses is characterized by a long interval between initial infection and the onset of serious symptoms.
     
  5. political squaw

    political squaw Member

    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    2
    i still haven't decided for myself who I chose to support, I am trying to find evidence that would convince me, that governments and corporations owners wouldn't have used the opportunity to make billions of $$, establishing AIDS Industry, if they had such an opportunity and it seems I am having troubles doing it. so to be continue, I guess..
     
  6. Elijah

    Elijah Member

    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    2
    why take what you are told by medical authorities on blind faith? they have plenty of reason and motive both to lie to the general public.


     
  7. political squaw

    political squaw Member

    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    2
    I don't. I am trying to take a look at both sides of the issue and help others to maintain their opinion, by showing how both -denialists and supporters participate in that scientific debate. So far denialists gained my respect, because supporters don't seem to provide us with any evidence, except they claim that evidence exists and next blame denialists for murdering people.
     
  8. political squaw

    political squaw Member

    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    2
    this is yet to be investigated. here is Duesberg's opinion on African AIDS epidemic

    ==========================================================

    An infectious epidemic is typically diagnosed by scientists and non-scientists by a sudden increase in morbidity and mortality of a population. As a result the affected population declines significantly, and a relatively immune population emerges. We typically think of a new epidemic in a "virgin" population as something that arises suddenly, sweeps through the population in a few months, and then wanes and disappears. Indeed, the classical epidemic curve for many respiratory or intestinal tract viral and bacterial infections is bell-shaped, with an overall duration of a few months to a year or so. Figure 4-1 illustrates a well-documented example, the 1665 plague in London, believed to have killed about one-third of the population in a few months."
    The seasonal poliomyelitis epidemics from the days prior to the polio vaccine, and the ever new, seasonal flu epidemics are specific modern examples of viral epidemics.
    All of these viral and microbial epidemics have the following in common:
    (i)

    They rise exponentially and then decline within weeks or months as originally described by William Farr in the early 19th century (Bregman & Langmuir, 1990). The rise reflects the exponential spread of contagion and the fall reflects the resulting natural vaccination or immunity of survivors.
    (ii) The epidemics spread randomly ("heterosexually" in the words of AIDS researchers) in the population.
    (iii) The resulting infectious diseases are highly specific reflecting the limited genetic information of the causative microbe. As a consequence the viral diseases are typically more specific than those caused by the more complex bacteria or fungi. It is for this reason that the viruses and microbes are typically named for the specific disease they cause. For example influenza virus is called after the flu, polio virus after the poliomyelitis, and hepatitis virus after the liver disease it causes
    (iv) The microbial and particularly the viral epidemics are self-limiting and thus typically seasonal, because they induce anti-microbial and viral immunity and select also for genetically resistant hosts.. By contrast, the following are characteristics of diseases caused by non-contagious, chemical or physical factors:
    (i)

    They follow no specific time course, but one that is determined by the dose and duration of exposure to the toxin.
    (ii) They spread according to consumption or exposure to toxic agents, but not exponentially.
    (iii) They spread either non-randomly with occupational or lifestyle factors, or randomly with environmental or nutritional factors.
    (iv) They range from relatively specific to unspecific depending on the nature of the toxin.
    (v) They are limited by discontinuation of intoxication, but not self-limiting because they do not generate immunity. For example, the American pellagra epidemic of the rural South in the early decades of the 20th century lasted for decades and no immunity emerged, until a vitamin B rich diet proved to be the cure. And it did not spread to the industrial North which had a diet rich in
    Vitamin B.
    Similarly the rather unspecific American epidemic of lung cancer-emphysema-heart disease-etc. rose steadily, not exponentially, in the 1950s and has lasted now for over 50 years without evidence for immunity.
    It did not spread randomly in the population but was restricted to smokers. And it is now slowly coming down as smoking slowly declines (Greenlee et al.,2000).
    Likewise the American and European AIDS epidemics:
    (i)

    rose steadily, not exponentially,
    (ii) were completely non-randomly biased 85% in favor of males,
    (iii) have followed first the over-use of recreational drugs, and then the extensive use of anti-AIDS-viral drugs (Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998),
    (iv) do not manifest in one or even just a few specific diseases typical of microbial epidemics,
    (v) do not spread to the general non-drug using population. AIDS manifests in a bewildering spectrum of 30 non-specific, heterogeneous diseases.
    This is consistent with the heterogeneity of the causative toxins.
    There is no evidence for AIDS-immunity in 18 years, but the American/European AIDS epidemics are now coming down slowly as fewer people use recreational drugs
    (Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998).
    The above summary indicates that American and European AIDS epidemics exhibit the characteristics of diseases caused by non-contagious, chemical or physical factors NOT viruses.

    A F R I C A N A I D S
    AFRICAN AIDS IN NUMBERS


    My analysis is based on statistical numbers from the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, the United Nations and the U.S. Agency for International Development & the U.S. Census Bureau (USAID).
    According to the WHO's Weekly Epidemiological Records,
    the whole continent of Africa has generated between 1991 and 1999 a rather steady yield of 60,000 to 90,000 AIDS cases annually, on average about 75,000 (WHO's Weekly Epidemiological Records since 1991).
    Based on the last available data from South Africa, 8,976 cases were reported there between 1994 and 1996 by the WHO, corresponding to about 4,500 cases per year (WHO's Weekly Epidemiological Records 1998 and 1995).
    The WHO does not report how many of these cases are deaths, how many survive with, and how many recover from AIDS.
    However, it is evident from the WHO data that the African AIDS epidemic is not following the bell-shaped curve of an exponential rise and subsequent sharp drop with immunity, that are typical of infectious epidemics. Instead it drags on like a nutritionally or environmentally caused disease (Seligmann et al., 1984), that steadily affects, what appears to be only a very small percentage of the African population.
    Given a current African population of 616 million (United Nations Environment Programme, June 15, 2000), and an average of 75,000 African AIDS cases per year, it follows that only 0.012% of the African population is annually suffering or dying from AIDS. Likewise only 0.01% of the South African population was suffering from AIDS between 1994 and 1996, based on the 4,500 annual cases and a population of approximately 44 million (US Agency for International Development, "HIV/AIDS in the developing World", May 1999). This means that the new African AIDS epidemic only represents a very small fraction of normal African mortality.
    Based on a current average life expectancy for Africa of about 50 years (US Agency for International Development, "HIV/AIDS in the developing World", May 1999), the annual mortality of 616 million people is 12.3 million. Thus even if we assume that all AIDS cases reported by the WHO are deaths, the African AIDS epidemic represents only 75,000 out of 12,300,000 deaths per year, or 0.6% of all African mortality. Thus African AIDS is certainly not one of the historical microbial epidemics described by Camus and Anderson (see above). Since no immunity has emerged in over a decade, the restriction of African AIDS to a relatively small fraction of the large reservoir of susceptible people indicates non-contagious risk factors that are limited to certain subsets of the African population.
    In view of the very small share (0.6%) that the African AIDS epidemic seems to hold on Africa's total mortality, the question arises whether the mortality claimed for AIDS is in fact new mortality, that can be distinguished from conventional mortality, or whether it is a minor fraction of conventional mortality under a new name.
    To answer these questions we must try to distinguish African AIDS diseases from conventional African diseases
    (i) clinically as well as
    (ii) statistically.

    THE LONG LIST OF AFRICAN AIDS DISEASES CAN NOT BE CLINICALLY DISTINGUISHED FROM THEIR CONVENTIONAL COUNTERPARTS
    According to the WHO's Bangui definition of AIDS (Widy-Wirski et al., 1988; Fiala, 1998) and the "Anonymous AIDS Notification" forms of the South African Department of Health, African AIDS is not a specific clinical disease, but a battery of previously known and thus totally unspecific diseases, for example:


    1. "weight loss over 10%,
    2. chronic diarrhea for more than a month,
    3. fever for more than a month,
    4. persistent cough,
    5. generalized pruritic dermatitis,
    6. recurrent herpes zoster (shingles),
    7. candidiasis oral and pharyngeal,
    8. chronic or persistent herpes,
    9. cryptococcal meningitis,
    10. Kaposi's sarcoma"
    Since these diseases include the most common diseases in Africa and in much of the rest of the world, it is impossible to distinguish clinically African AIDS diseases from previously known, and concurrently diagnosed, conventional African diseases. Thus African AIDS is clinically unspecific, unlike microbial diseases, but just like some nutritionally and chemically caused diseases (see above).

    AFRICAN AIDS IS TOO SMALL TO BE DETECTED STATISTICALLY AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF NORMAL AFRICAN MORBIDITY, MORTALITY AND GROWTH RATES
    We have already pointed out that it is almost impossible to be certain about the existence of a new African AIDS epidemic that claims only 0.6% of African mortality, particularly since all AIDS defining diseases are profoundly conventional African diseases.
    The same is true if we try to determine the effect of the presumably new African AIDS epidemic on the current growth rates of Africa. The annual population growth rates of Africa have been between 2.4 and 2.8% per year since 1960 based on the American Agency for International Development & the U.S. Census Bureau's "HIV/AIDS in the Developing World" (U.S. Agency for International Development & U.S. Census Bureau, Feb. & May 1999) and the United Nations' "African population Database Documentation" (United Nations Environment Programme, June 15, 2000).
    As a result of the high African growth rates, the population of the whole African continent has grown from 274 million in 1960, to 356 million in 1970, to 469 million in 1980, and to 616 million in 1990 (United Nations Environment Programme, June 15, 2000). By comparison the annual growth rate of the US is only 1% and that of Europe is only 0.5% (USAID, Feb. & May 1999).
    Because of the numerical discrepancy between the relatively high African growth rates (2.4 to 2.8%) and the small annual deficits of these growth rates to be expected from AIDS mortality (0.6%), an African AIDS epidemic can not be identified or confirmed based on its effect on the high African growth rates. In view of this, and the complete overlap between the complex battery of diseases that define the AIDS epidemic and their conventional counterparts, it appears that the presumably new AIDS epidemic can be neither distinguished epidemiologically nor clinically from conventional African diseases and mortality.
    DECEPTIVE REPORTING OBSCURES ANALYSIS OF AFRICAN AIDS
    To all of us who have been subjected to the American AIDS rhetoric, and indeed the rhetoric of our first meeting in Pretoria last May, about the "catastrophic dimensions" of African AIDS (Washington Post, April 30, 2000), the healthy African growth rates come as a big surprise. Take as an example of this rhetoric President Clinton's recent designation of AIDS as a "threat to US national security ... spurred by US intelligence reports that looked at the pandemic's broadest consequences, ... particularly Africa ... [and] projected that a quarter of southern Africa's population is likely to die of AIDS ..." (Washington Post, April 30, 2000).
    In view of this rhetoric, it would appear that neither President Clinton nor the "U.S. intelligence" are aware of information available to the American Agency for International Development & the U.S. Census Bureau. Indeed the USAID & Census Bureau seem to have noticed the discrepancy between the facts and the rhetoric and are trying to hide it - the possible reason why "the largest demographic impact of AIDS" is cautiously described either as just a relatively small reduction in "life expectancy" or in expected population growth (not loss!): "Differences in population size between the AIDS-adjusted and the non-adjusted scenarios are often substantial ... By the year 2010 ... South Africa will have 5.6 million fewer people ..." than expected based on current growth rates ("HIV/AIDS in the Developing World", U.S. Agency for International Development & U.S. Census Bureau, May 1999). A "catastrophe" 10 years down the road - and a "threat to U.S. national Security" now!
    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).
    It would follow that the estimated increases in African HIV antibody (!)-positives do not correlate with decreases in any African population. On the contrary, they correlate with unprecedented simultaneous increases in the country's populations - hardly the "catastrophe" imagined by the Washington Post and propagated by the WHO and the American AIDS establishment. But this deceptive AIDS propaganda biases a scientific analysis of African AIDS by all those who are not aware of the facts.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    (1) The African AIDS epidemic fails all criteria of a microbial or viral epidemic:
    (i) It is steady, i.e. about 75,000 cases per year since the early 1990s, instead of growing exponentially into the large reservoir of 617 million susceptible people, as would be typical of a new viral or microbial epidemic;
    (ii) It is not self-limiting via immunity within weeks or months, as is typical of a microbial and particularly of a viral disease. Instead it appears to maintain for years a rather steady share of African morbidity and mortality.
    (iii) It is clinically exceedingly heterogeneous totally lacking any specificity of its own, unlike all conventional viral and even bacterial diseases. In conclusion, the African AIDS epidemic does not have even one of the specific characters of a viral or microbial epidemic.
    (2) Since the suspected African AIDS epidemic of an average of 75,000 annual cases can neither be identified as a new epidemic
    (i) clinically because of its total lack of a clinical identity, nor
    (ii) numerically because of its small share of the total African morbidity and because of undetectable effects on the rapid growth of the African population,
    the primary scientific task of our AIDS panel will now be to determine whether there is in fact a new epidemic of AIDS defining diseases in Africa, or whether a fraction normal morbidity and mortality has been renamed AIDS. The answer to this question would be the first order of business for all AIDS prevention and treatment programs considered by President Mbeki. To find this answer, I second the proposal from an African AIDS researcher published 13 years ago, "Clinical epidemiology, not [HIV] seroepidemiology, is the answer to Africa's AIDS problem" (Konotey-Ahulu, 1987).
    (3) The African statistics of AIDS and HIV antibody-positives confirm Mbeki's suspicion about discrepancies between the African and American AIDS epidemics (Mbeki's letter to U.S. President Clinton, Washington Post, April 19, 2000):
    In Africa 23 million HIV-positives generate per year 75,000 AIDS patients, ie. 1 AIDS case per 300 HIV-positives.
    But in the US, 0.9 million HIV-positives (WHO, Weekly Epidemiological Record 73, 373-380, 1998) now generate per year about 45,000 AIDS cases (Centers for Disease Control, 1999), ie. 1 AIDS case per 20 HIV-positives.
    Thus the AIDS risk of an American HIV-positive is about 15-times higher than that of an African! Since over 150,000 healthy (!) HIV-positive Americans are currently treated with DNA chain-terminating and other anti-HIV drugs (Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998), and since American HIV-positives have a 15-fold higher AIDS risk than African HIV-positives, President Mbeki must be warned about American advice on "treatments" of HIV-positives.
    (4) The discrepancies between African AIDS and infectious disease, and the discrepancies between the high AIDS risk of American compared to African HIV-positives can both be readily explained by the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by non-contagious risk factors and that HIV is a harmless passenger virus (Duesberg, 1996; Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998).
    According to this hypothesis the African AIDS diseases are generated by their conventional, widespread causes, malnutrition, parasitic infections and poor sanitation as originally proposed by leading AIDS researchers including Fauci, Seligmann et al. (Seligmann et al., 1984).
    This hypothesis also offers a simple explanation for the "heterosexual" distribution of AIDS in the African people, a question also asked by Mbeki in his letter to President Clinton (see above). Malnutrition, parasitic infections and poor sanitation do not discriminate between sexes. By contrast, American AIDS would be caused by recreational drugs consumed by millions and anti-HIV drugs prescribed to about 200,000 including 150,000 still healthy HIV-positives (Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998). The non-random, 85%-male epidemiology of American AIDS reflects the male prerogative on hard recreational drugs (heroin, cocaine) and the wide-spread use of drugs as male homosexual stimulants (Haverkos & Dougherty, 1988; Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998).
    In the light of this hypothesis the new epidemic of HIV-antibodies would simply reflect a new epidemic of HIV-antibody testing, introduced and inspired by new American biotechnology. This technology was developed during the last 20 years for basic research to detect the equivalents of biological needles in a haystack, but not to "detect" the massive invasions of viruses that are necessary to cause ALL conventional viral diseases (Duesberg, 1992; Duesberg & Schwartz, 1992; Duesberg, 1996; Mullis, 1996; Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998; Mullis, 1998). But this technology is now faithfully but inappropriately used by thousands of AIDS virus researchers and activists to detect latent, ie. biochemically and biologically inactive HIV or even just antibodies against it (Duesberg & Bialy, 1996)! The same technology also provides job security for other virologists and doctors searching for latent, and thus biologically inactive, viruses as their preferred causes of Kaposi's sarcoma, cervical cancer, leukemia, liver cancer, and rare neurological diseases - without ever producing any public health benefits (Duesberg & Schwartz, 1992).
    (5) President Mbeki must also be warned about Dr. Joe Sonnabend's answer to the president's question about the epidemiological discrepancy between the "heterosexual" AIDS epidemic in Africa and the non-random, 85%- male epidemic in the U.S. (Mbeki's letter to U.S. President Clinton, Washington Post, April 19, 2000).
    According to Sonnabend's hypothesis, Africans acquire HIV heterosexually, because they simultaneously suffer from a long list of diseases, including "tuberculosis, malaria, other protozoal infections, bacterial diarrheal infections, pneumonia, plasmodium, Leishmania" etc. However, the very low AIDS risk of an African HIV-positive, compared to an American, calls this hypothesis into question. If the Sonnabend-hypothesis were correct, African HIV-positives should develop AIDS much more readily than their American counterparts. But the opposite is true. In fact according to Sonnabend most Africans should already have AIDS by the time they pick up HIV "heterosexually".
    Moreover, the Sonnabend-hypothesis does not resolve the discrepancy between relatively high share of children from 0-14 years in African AIDS, ie. 7%, compared to the 1% share of AIDS by their American counterparts (WHO, Weekly Epidemiological Record, vol. 49, pp381-384, 4 December 1998). According to the WHO, "AIDS in children is an important phenomenon in many African countries, whereas it is relatively rare in industrialized countries."
    Again AIDS in children is not compatible with "heterosexual transmission of HIV" while suffering from Sonnabend's bewildering list of diseases. But AIDS in children is very compatible with malnutrition, parasitic infection and poor sanitation. Therefore, President Mbeki must be warned against treatment of these children with DNA chain-terminators and other anti-HIV drugs as suggested by Sonnabend's hypothesis.



    ========================================================
     
  9. political squaw

    political squaw Member

    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    2
    shortly after mass media started reporting on numerous deaths in South Africa, blaming for it AIDS denialists and their medical ignorance ( you can find those reports all over the internet, just google it), as a result President Mbeki was thrown out of the office and pharmaceutical companies continued importing anti-HIV drugs to Africa.

    here is the one of them, well-known AZT

    [​IMG]
    Cesar Schmitz was healthy in 1992. When he started AZT, he developed nausea, diarrhea and weight loss. In 1994, he stopped AZT and his symptoms disappeared. [FONT=&quot]But, in 1998, Schmitz developed lymphoma, a common late result of AZT, and died.[/FONT]

    [​IMG]
     
  10. political squaw

    political squaw Member

    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    2
  11. political squaw

    political squaw Member

    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    2
    The first medication used against HIV was the DNA chain-terminator AZT in 1987, originally designed in 1964 to kill human cells for chemotherapy of cancer.

    In principle, however, a specific anti-viral drug is biologically impossible.
    Because the cell makes all viral DNA, RNA or protein molecules, cellular DNA, RNA or protein synthesis must be inhibited to inhibit a virus.
    Therefore, all drugs that inhibit viruses are inevitably toxic.

    [​IMG]



    AZT causes life-threatening anemia, severe immune deficiency, cancer, nerve and liver damage, muscle wasting, diarrhea and other diseases.
     
  12. political squaw

    political squaw Member

    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    2
    [​IMG]
    Deadly toxic chemical hazard warning by Sigma Chemical Co. on tiny 25mg bottles of AZT supplied to research laboratories. You obviously don’t find this advice on GlaxoSmithKline's AZT label, or in its package insert recommending a daily dose of up to sixty times as much. Or let’s face it: who would swallow it?
     
  13. drew5147

    drew5147 Dingledodie

    Messages:
    4,332
    Likes Received:
    3
    Hey, it makes them money.
     
  14. political squaw

    political squaw Member

    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    2

    isn't it a bit scary, making money from killing people? lol
     
  15. drew5147

    drew5147 Dingledodie

    Messages:
    4,332
    Likes Received:
    3
  16. shaggie

    shaggie Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    19
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/opinion/04moore.html?_r=3&oref=slogin


    "Deadly Quackery

    By JOHN MOORE and NICOLI NATTRASS
    Published: June 4, 2006

    H.I.V. causes AIDS. This is not a controversial claim but an established fact, based on more than 20 years of solid science. It is as certain as the descent of humans from apes and the falling of dropped objects to the ground.

    So why reiterate the obvious? Because lately, a bizarre theory has gained ground — one that claims that H.I.V. is harmless, and that the antiretroviral drugs that curb the growth of the virus cause rather than treat AIDS. Such talk sounds to most of us like quackery, but the theory has emerged as a genuine menace to public health in the United States and, particularly, in South Africa.

    The theory, which we call AIDS denialism, has gained such currency with President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa that his administration is reluctant to expand access to antiretroviral drugs. Despite generous allocations from the country's Treasury and substantial assistance from foreign donors, only a quarter of those needing antiretrovirals receive them. This response is poor by the standards of middle-income countries, but it is especially troublesome in South Africa, which has more H.I.V.-positive people than any other country.

    American AIDS denialists are partly to blame for South Africa's backsliding AIDS policy. Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, the health minister, has described antiretrovirals as poisons. She is supported in these views by Roberto Giraldo, a New York hospital technologist who says AIDS is caused by deficiencies in the diet, and who served on President Mbeki's AIDS advisory panel in 2000. The minister promotes nutritional alternatives like lemons, garlic and olive oil to treat H.I.V. infection. Several prominent South Africans have died of AIDS after opting to change their diets instead of taking antiretrovirals.

    Another American AIDS denialist, David Rasnick, a regular letter-writer to South African newspapers, absurdly claims that H.I.V. cannot be transmitted between heterosexuals. Mr. Rasnick now works in South Africa for a multinational vitamin company, the Rath Foundation, conducting clinical trials in which AIDS patients are encouraged to take multivitamins instead of antiretrovirals.

    In the past, South Africa's Medicines Control Council acted swiftly to curb such abuses, and the Medical Research Council condemned AIDS denialism. But recent high-level political appointments of administration supporters to both bodies have neutered their influence. In South Africa, AIDS denialism now underpins a lucrative nutritional supplements industry that has the tacit, and sometimes active, support of the Mbeki administration.

    By courting the AIDS denialists, President Mbeki has increased their stature in the United States. He lent credibility to Christine Maggiore, a Californian who campaigns against using antiretrovirals to prevent transmission of H.I.V. from mothers to children, when he was photographed meeting her. Two years later, Ms. Maggiore gave birth to an H.I.V.-infected daughter, Eliza Jane, who acquired an AIDS-related infection last year and died at age 3.

    Mother-to-child H.I.V. transmission is now rare in the United States, thanks to the widespread use of preventive therapy and the activities of organizations like the National Institutes of Health and the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. Sadly, this is not so in South Africa, where many children are born infected and then face short, painful lives. The health and lives of American children are also still under threat: a small clique of AIDS denialists is trying to block the provision of antiretrovirals to H.I.V.-infected children in the New York City foster care system.

    Until recently, AIDS researchers and activists in the United States tended to regard the denialists with derision, assuming they would fade away. Unfortunately, this has not happened. Harper's Magazine recently published an article by Celia Farber promoting the denialist view. There is a real risk that a new generation of Americans could be persuaded that H.I.V. either doesn't exist or is harmless, that safe sex isn't important and that they don't need to protect their children from this deadly virus. A resurgence of denialism in the United States would have far reaching effects on the global AIDS pandemic, just as it already has in South Africa.

    The AIDS denialists use pseudoscience and non-peer-reviewed Internet postings to bolster their false claims about H.I.V. The real facts about this virus have been uncovered by scientists supported by the National Institutes of Health, the British and South African Medical Research Councils, the Pasteur Institute and many other national research organizations. The public should seek AIDS truth from the latter sources.

    It is sad when selling magazines and vitamin supplements is considered more important than promoting public health and scientific truth. The truth is that H.I.V. does exist, that it causes AIDS and that antiretroviral drugs can prevent H.I.V. transmission and death from AIDS. To deny these facts is not just wrong — it's deadly.

    John Moore is a professor of microbiology and immunology at Cornell University. Nicoli Nattrass is the director of the AIDS and Society Research Unit at the University of Cape Town."

    .
     
  17. Aristartle

    Aristartle Snow Falling on Cedars Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    13,828
    Likes Received:
    13
    You would, but you need to educate yourself.
     
  18. political squaw

    political squaw Member

    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    2
    I am very pleased to see people do realize, that freedom in all aspects- political, economical, physical- is in fact just an image and not the reality.

    this is what we are trying to do here, right?

    is that certain?
    whatever the case is, that statement itself is pretty inaccurate, especially for a scientist and especially for a professor of microbiology. Even I know, Darwin postulated that "all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors", which means humans and apes had common ancestors, but not that humans evolved from apes, otherwise it'd be happening nowadays :O Dr Moore probably has bought his diploma online or didn't bother studying Darwin's theories, I think we shouldn't take him seriously lol As for Mrs Nicoli Nattrass, she is the director of the AIDS and Society Research Unit, so her motivations are clear.
     
  19. shaggie

    shaggie Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    19
    It's expected that Duesberg would deny it. That's what denialists do. He wouldn't want to be held responsible for the deaths that result from an irresponsible denialist policy. His view is that it was nothing more than an insignificant fluke amidst the background noise of deaths from other causes. In other words, 'people die all the time'.

    .
     
  20. shaggie

    shaggie Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    19
    Perusing the denialist posts in this thread and in other forums on the web, it's clear that much of it is cut-and-paste from Duesberg's site. It becomes apparent how small of a group denialists such as Duesberg are. Even so, a few prominent denialist ring leaders can still do a significant amount of damage, especially if they worm their way into positions of political power.

    .
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice