To address your latest set of links:
My assertion was that:
No sensible scientist would ever say 'HIV can never be eliminated from the body and will always lead to AIDS and death'
I was quoting from one of your previous posts.
Your links purport to support the position:
'there is no cure for HIV'.
Please read again my quote from your post, I have highlighted the bit you have somehow ignored.
'HIV can never be eliminated from the body and will always lead to AIDS and death'
So once again, I have torn you apart on these issues, and your credibility is shattered in everything you have said.
Suggestion - if you ever want to win an argument, try for something which is less complex and keep it simple, the more you say the more likely you will shoot yourself in the foot.
I am only bothering because, like probably everybody else reading this, I have friends and family who are either infected with HIV or have died of AIDS. It is an insult to them to say 'improve your immune system, get up and heal thyself, '.
- essence
- 02-18-2012, 09:54 PM
- Guest032516
- 02-18-2012, 10:13 PM
Mr. Bill, allow me to say you are a complete paranoid idiot.
HIV causes AIDS. Period.
I don't care HOW many posts you copy here from conspiracy websites.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, AIDS killed people by the millions.
And then, the drug companies that you so despise developed combinations of drugs that held the HIV load in patients in check. And voila! They stopped dying in droves.
AIDS has gone from being a death sentence to a treatable condition.
To you this is a conspiracy because drug companies make money. Well, diabetes is not curable either. It is only a treatable condition and drug companies make money on treating diabetes, too. Perhaps you would care to share you thoughts on the "real" cause of diabetes? Have we all been sold a bunch of lies about the pancreas failing to produce insulin?
And what all the focus on gays and poppers? AIDS has had its biggest impact on heterosexuals in Africa, not homosexuals in the US. How did all those Africans get AIDS? And why do they keeping dying? Unless, of course, they receive the same drugs, made by the same drug companies, that Americans get? In which case, they also live.
HIV causes AIDS. Period.
I don't care HOW many posts you copy here from conspiracy websites.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, AIDS killed people by the millions.
And then, the drug companies that you so despise developed combinations of drugs that held the HIV load in patients in check. And voila! They stopped dying in droves.
AIDS has gone from being a death sentence to a treatable condition.
To you this is a conspiracy because drug companies make money. Well, diabetes is not curable either. It is only a treatable condition and drug companies make money on treating diabetes, too. Perhaps you would care to share you thoughts on the "real" cause of diabetes? Have we all been sold a bunch of lies about the pancreas failing to produce insulin?
And what all the focus on gays and poppers? AIDS has had its biggest impact on heterosexuals in Africa, not homosexuals in the US. How did all those Africans get AIDS? And why do they keeping dying? Unless, of course, they receive the same drugs, made by the same drug companies, that Americans get? In which case, they also live.
- JackBlackTn
- 02-18-2012, 10:26 PM
Much, much scientific evidence demonstrates that AIDS is real and caused by HIV. To doubt this is foolish. Please guys, get real.
- Mr. Bill
- 02-18-2012, 11:33 PM
Now, for some hard scientific evidence that thr immune system alone will eradicate HIV from somebody who has already become chronically infected? Completely eradicated, not just controlled?You fail to recognize that Luc Montagnier is, and has been one of the world's leading advocates of HIV = AIDS + drugs = death for over 27 years. For him to break from the herd and say what he did, the entire HIV/AIDS paradigm is deconstructed in a single interview.
Show it to me, I know you can't. Apart from maybe a few exceptional cases.
Unless of course you are the pope (sorry, shouldn't bring religion into this....) Originally Posted by essence
From the start of the HIV scam in the early 80's, Montagnier always said he never found much of anything; yet he was awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering what today is called HIV. Perhaps his admission is because his conscious is bothering him since millions of lives worldwide have been destroyed by the HIV/AIDS/AZT fraud.
Hard evidence you ask? There is no need to eradicate HIV from anyone; because there is no HIV. AIDS is caused by heavy drug abuse, over usage of antibiotics, malnutrition and/or deadly AIDS meds - not by 'HIV' - or historically well-known illnesses are simply re-packaged by the CDC and passed off as AIDS.
What is your point anyway? Answer: you have none. Like most piss ants, you say only enough to show your ass - then gloat over yourself thinking you've actually accomplished something useful.
.
- Mr. Bill
- 02-18-2012, 11:42 PM
Mr. Bill, allow me to say you are a complete paranoid idiot.Maybe you can get a job selling AZT to the blind for GlaxoSmithKline, or one of the other drug manufacturers. They like dumbed down robots that heel on command.
HIV causes AIDS. Period.
I don't care HOW many posts you copy here from conspiracy websites.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, AIDS killed people by the millions.
And then, the drug companies that you so despise developed combinations of drugs that held the HIV load in patients in check. And voila! They stopped dying in droves.
AIDS has gone from being a death sentence to a treatable condition. Originally Posted by ExNYer
.
- essence
- 02-19-2012, 10:26 AM
What is your point anyway? . Originally Posted by Mr. BillMy point is very simple. You are a stupid dangerous clown. You arguments lack any credibility, and the more you post the more foolish you appear.
Let me take another example to support the above assertions, I would hate to just give an opinion without any evidence.
You say HIV does not exist.
You also say HIV can be eradicated from the body.
Do you have a third irreconcilable view which you can sustain before taking lunch?
- essence
- 02-19-2012, 03:17 PM
I've only just found it, but Mr Bill also doesn;t believe planes were used on 9/11, that was also a great conspiracy.
This really helps the credibility of all his nonsense.
Joe Bloe isn't much better, convinced Obama's birth certificate is a forgery.
I think we need a list of wacko posters, with a short summary of why they are on the list.
This really helps the credibility of all his nonsense.
Joe Bloe isn't much better, convinced Obama's birth certificate is a forgery.
I think we need a list of wacko posters, with a short summary of why they are on the list.
- Guest032516
- 02-19-2012, 05:52 PM
Maybe you can get a job selling AZT to the blind for GlaxoSmithKline, or one of the other drug manufacturers. They like dumbed down robots that heel on command. Originally Posted by Mr. BillYour non-answer is a perfect example of what conspiracy nuts do when confronted with arguments that punch holes in their grand conspiracies.
I asked you point-blank why AIDs no longer kills millions (in the US and Europe at least) and has become a treatable condition. And all you can say is that I should get a job working for drug companies.
No facts in your response, just a dumb insinuation.
People like you are dangerous because some poor soul in need of proper medical treatment might instead pursue quack remedies base on your postings. And end up dead as a result.
- Mr. Bill
- 02-20-2012, 12:59 PM
Winning Criminal HIV Cases
by Clark Baker
In 2006, an Australian court found Andre Parenzee guilty of exposing three women to the alleged HIV virus. Despite the celebratory noise produced by a small group of pharmaceutical reps in this South African blog, it became clear that Parenzee was convicted not because he was HIV+ but because his attorney didn’t understand how to wage a competent HIV defense. I found similar problems with Nushawn “Notorious HIV” Williams (1997), Willie Campbell (2008) and Philippe Padieu (2009). In each case, defense lawyers quietly accepted the word of junk scientists.
HIV research is comprised largely of incoherent gibberish that can only be explained by other virologists who, upon careful review, have more in common with the astrologers of Rome’s geocentric universe than real scientists. Once I understood who they were, I started to look at HIV as something akin to a typical drunk driving case. When pharmaceutical reps attacked me for my blasphemy, I created the HIV Innocence Group. In every case where defense attorneys worked with OMSJ during the past year, all HIV charges have been dismissed by prosecutors.
Winning HIV cases does not require a PhD or even a medical degree. Except for voir dire and the cross examination of expert witnesses, most criminal HIV defendants can be well-served by an experienced DUI attorney who understands the fundamentals of gas chromatography (GCI): When the equipment requires calibration, how calibration samples and standards are produced and how to question the lab techs and manufacturers who invented and service the devices. Furthermore, courts can no longer force defendants to stipulate that tests were competently conducted.
HIV Theology
When the journal Science published Robert Gallo’s HIV theories in 1984, researchers soon discovered that they could demand millions of dollars if they didn’t question his dubious reports. As a result, thousands – perhaps millions – of pages of HIV gibberish were published – all peer reviewed by cohorts who also receive millions of dollars in research funding. Although Gallo never explained how he proved that HIV attacks cells or causes AIDS, subsequent researchers who accepted his opinions on faith received research funding, while those who questioned it were defunded and ridiculed. In this way, the profiteers of HIV (researchers, drug companies and the politicians they support) have turned HIV into a de facto religion.
Because all HIV research is based upon Robert Gallo’s unproven assumptions, all research based upon those assumptions is also unsupported. As a result, HIV has divided two factions – the well-funded researchers and pharmaceutical reps who believe the HIV causes AIDS, thousands of meth trannies who enforce the religion, and heretics who question those religious beliefs.
If all of this sounds bizarre, ask the NIH, CDC or HHS this question directly:
Criminal HIV Cases
When someone is charged with being HIV+, the first question is whether they are actually infected with HIV. It’s not enough for someone to admit they’re HIV+ – no one – not even the so-called experts – have the training or expertise to competently diagnose an HIV infection. To do so requires HIV tests that are designed to do nothing more than market HIV as a disease.
So if a defendant admits having acquired HIV, it only means that an unknown and unqualified third-party might have used a test that cannot detect the HIV virus to diagnose a disease that was never proven to cause AIDS. Until those unknown third parties are identified and cross examined – along with their notes and information related to their diagnosis, the admission is nothing more than unqualified hearsay.
Discovery
Defense attorneys who accept HIV cases should demand all medical and scientific evidence that prosecutors plan to use against the defendant. Generally speaking, prosecutors either provide a few pages of HIV test results or may produce boxes of documents in what is called a document dump. OMSJ sifts through the gibberish and distills the contents – usually in the form of an affidavit – into a readable report. Based upon the results of that document, defense attorneys can quickly assess the merits of the case.
Conflicts of Interest
Generally speaking, most self-described “AIDS experts” have serious conflicts of interest that prevent them from assisting HIV defendants. Medical doctors who might question current HIV theology face serious consequences in the form of peer review, suspension and the loss of their careers. Hospitals and universities that receive NIH funding risk the loss of funding unless they take action against heretical doctor.
This isn’t generally a problem for prosecutors, whose cases are based upon theology. So when Professor Michael Metzker testified for prosecutors in the Phillippe Padeau case (2009), he never revealed the $4.8 million he received from the NIH since 2003 or the $billions Baylor has received since 2002 from the NIH. Disclosing the HIV scam would not have been good for Baylor or Professor Metzker – a fact that was probably never raised during Padieu’s high profile trial. Unfortunately for him, OMSJ was not yet ready to assist in that case.
Why would the NIH pay Baylor and Metzker millions? It probably has to do with the fact that infectious disease became statistically irrelevant in the US by 1955 (and that HIV has never been statistically relevant in Europe, Australia or South Africa [2007]) despite the marketing of AIDS. At the same time, preventable deaths due to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) kill and injure millions each year in America alone, while the drug industry that promotes HIV tests and treatment has paid $8 billion since 2004 to settle thousands of criminal and civil complaints – also related to the illegal marketing of drugs.
Criminal HIV cases are not about crime or infection – they are about the marketing of AIDS. Without cases like Padeau, HIV would be entirely irrelevant.
Medical Experts
Medical experts and PhDs found on websites like this are generally comprised of physicians who face retaliation if they deviate from the theology.
But when OMSJ is involved, defense attorneys have experts who do not fear retaliation. This is why prosecutors who initially threaten defendants like Eneydi Torres with decades in prison offer face-saving pleas of five days of unsupervised probation for admissions of “disturbing the peace.” When OMSJ is involved, HIV experts suddenly behave like vampire who awaken in church.
Objectives
Every HIV case is challenged by competing objectives:
During the past year, OMSJ’s objectives have been quashed by prosecutors who surrender, defense attorneys who make deals and defendants whose character and criminal records make them unsympathetic, at best. The good news is that, despite President Obama’s recent request to stop HIV prosecutions, new cases continue to be filed.
OMSJ is currently involved in dozens of active criminal and civil cases throughout the US and Canada. Sooner or later, a sympathetic citizen with much to lose will hire an intellectually curious attorney in a jurisdiction where prosecutors want a trial. When that happens, OMSJ plans to deliver medical, scientific and legal experts who are already prepared for the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st century.
Clark Baker served 20 years with the LAPD and 13 years as a licensed private investigator. He is the current Director and Founder of OMSJ.
.
by Clark Baker
In 2006, an Australian court found Andre Parenzee guilty of exposing three women to the alleged HIV virus. Despite the celebratory noise produced by a small group of pharmaceutical reps in this South African blog, it became clear that Parenzee was convicted not because he was HIV+ but because his attorney didn’t understand how to wage a competent HIV defense. I found similar problems with Nushawn “Notorious HIV” Williams (1997), Willie Campbell (2008) and Philippe Padieu (2009). In each case, defense lawyers quietly accepted the word of junk scientists.
HIV research is comprised largely of incoherent gibberish that can only be explained by other virologists who, upon careful review, have more in common with the astrologers of Rome’s geocentric universe than real scientists. Once I understood who they were, I started to look at HIV as something akin to a typical drunk driving case. When pharmaceutical reps attacked me for my blasphemy, I created the HIV Innocence Group. In every case where defense attorneys worked with OMSJ during the past year, all HIV charges have been dismissed by prosecutors.
Winning HIV cases does not require a PhD or even a medical degree. Except for voir dire and the cross examination of expert witnesses, most criminal HIV defendants can be well-served by an experienced DUI attorney who understands the fundamentals of gas chromatography (GCI): When the equipment requires calibration, how calibration samples and standards are produced and how to question the lab techs and manufacturers who invented and service the devices. Furthermore, courts can no longer force defendants to stipulate that tests were competently conducted.
HIV Theology
When the journal Science published Robert Gallo’s HIV theories in 1984, researchers soon discovered that they could demand millions of dollars if they didn’t question his dubious reports. As a result, thousands – perhaps millions – of pages of HIV gibberish were published – all peer reviewed by cohorts who also receive millions of dollars in research funding. Although Gallo never explained how he proved that HIV attacks cells or causes AIDS, subsequent researchers who accepted his opinions on faith received research funding, while those who questioned it were defunded and ridiculed. In this way, the profiteers of HIV (researchers, drug companies and the politicians they support) have turned HIV into a de facto religion.
Because all HIV research is based upon Robert Gallo’s unproven assumptions, all research based upon those assumptions is also unsupported. As a result, HIV has divided two factions – the well-funded researchers and pharmaceutical reps who believe the HIV causes AIDS, thousands of meth trannies who enforce the religion, and heretics who question those religious beliefs.
If all of this sounds bizarre, ask the NIH, CDC or HHS this question directly:
“WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHO proved that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS?”When I posed the question last year, a behavioral consultant responded with something akin to the Nicene Creed. Simply stated, those who study HIV are comprised of a well-funded group of clerics and enforcers and disciples who believe that HIV=AIDS=DEATH and 2) a larger number of unfunded skeptics who do not.
Criminal HIV Cases
When someone is charged with being HIV+, the first question is whether they are actually infected with HIV. It’s not enough for someone to admit they’re HIV+ – no one – not even the so-called experts – have the training or expertise to competently diagnose an HIV infection. To do so requires HIV tests that are designed to do nothing more than market HIV as a disease.
So if a defendant admits having acquired HIV, it only means that an unknown and unqualified third-party might have used a test that cannot detect the HIV virus to diagnose a disease that was never proven to cause AIDS. Until those unknown third parties are identified and cross examined – along with their notes and information related to their diagnosis, the admission is nothing more than unqualified hearsay.
Discovery
Defense attorneys who accept HIV cases should demand all medical and scientific evidence that prosecutors plan to use against the defendant. Generally speaking, prosecutors either provide a few pages of HIV test results or may produce boxes of documents in what is called a document dump. OMSJ sifts through the gibberish and distills the contents – usually in the form of an affidavit – into a readable report. Based upon the results of that document, defense attorneys can quickly assess the merits of the case.
Conflicts of Interest
Generally speaking, most self-described “AIDS experts” have serious conflicts of interest that prevent them from assisting HIV defendants. Medical doctors who might question current HIV theology face serious consequences in the form of peer review, suspension and the loss of their careers. Hospitals and universities that receive NIH funding risk the loss of funding unless they take action against heretical doctor.
This isn’t generally a problem for prosecutors, whose cases are based upon theology. So when Professor Michael Metzker testified for prosecutors in the Phillippe Padeau case (2009), he never revealed the $4.8 million he received from the NIH since 2003 or the $billions Baylor has received since 2002 from the NIH. Disclosing the HIV scam would not have been good for Baylor or Professor Metzker – a fact that was probably never raised during Padieu’s high profile trial. Unfortunately for him, OMSJ was not yet ready to assist in that case.
Why would the NIH pay Baylor and Metzker millions? It probably has to do with the fact that infectious disease became statistically irrelevant in the US by 1955 (and that HIV has never been statistically relevant in Europe, Australia or South Africa [2007]) despite the marketing of AIDS. At the same time, preventable deaths due to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) kill and injure millions each year in America alone, while the drug industry that promotes HIV tests and treatment has paid $8 billion since 2004 to settle thousands of criminal and civil complaints – also related to the illegal marketing of drugs.
Criminal HIV cases are not about crime or infection – they are about the marketing of AIDS. Without cases like Padeau, HIV would be entirely irrelevant.
Medical Experts
Medical experts and PhDs found on websites like this are generally comprised of physicians who face retaliation if they deviate from the theology.
But when OMSJ is involved, defense attorneys have experts who do not fear retaliation. This is why prosecutors who initially threaten defendants like Eneydi Torres with decades in prison offer face-saving pleas of five days of unsupervised probation for admissions of “disturbing the peace.” When OMSJ is involved, HIV experts suddenly behave like vampire who awaken in church.
Objectives
Every HIV case is challenged by competing objectives:
- Baylor University and college professors do not want their exorbitant funding to be interrupted;
- Prosecutors don’t want to suffer the humiliating loss of a high profile case;
- Defense attorneys want the best deal for their clients;
- Defendants want their freedom.
During the past year, OMSJ’s objectives have been quashed by prosecutors who surrender, defense attorneys who make deals and defendants whose character and criminal records make them unsympathetic, at best. The good news is that, despite President Obama’s recent request to stop HIV prosecutions, new cases continue to be filed.
OMSJ is currently involved in dozens of active criminal and civil cases throughout the US and Canada. Sooner or later, a sympathetic citizen with much to lose will hire an intellectually curious attorney in a jurisdiction where prosecutors want a trial. When that happens, OMSJ plans to deliver medical, scientific and legal experts who are already prepared for the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st century.
Clark Baker served 20 years with the LAPD and 13 years as a licensed private investigator. He is the current Director and Founder of OMSJ.
.
- essence
- 02-20-2012, 01:59 PM
- why does AIDs no longer kills millions (in the US and Europe at least) and has become a treatable condition?
- do you believe HIV exists?
- do you believe that the immune system alone will eradicate HIV from the body from somebody chronocally affected? If so, what is your evidence? What proportion of people would you expect this to happen to?
- if somebody came to you who said that they were on a drug treatment for HIV, would you recommend to them they stop taking the treatment?
-is it pure coincidence that you also believe conspiracy fantasies about 9/11?
You have so far answered none of these questions, but tried to smother them in vast volumes of irrelevance. Please answer all these questions in concise statements without doing massive cut and pastes.
- do you believe HIV exists?
- do you believe that the immune system alone will eradicate HIV from the body from somebody chronocally affected? If so, what is your evidence? What proportion of people would you expect this to happen to?
- if somebody came to you who said that they were on a drug treatment for HIV, would you recommend to them they stop taking the treatment?
-is it pure coincidence that you also believe conspiracy fantasies about 9/11?
You have so far answered none of these questions, but tried to smother them in vast volumes of irrelevance. Please answer all these questions in concise statements without doing massive cut and pastes.
- Mr. Bill
- 02-20-2012, 04:09 PM
- why does AIDs no longer kills millions (in the US and Europe at least) and has become a treatable condition?I tend to ignore bullshit, childish attacks, and assholes in general - however, since your request included the word *please*, I'll make an exception in this instance.
- do you believe HIV exists?
- do you believe that the immune system alone will eradicate HIV from the body from somebody chronocally affected? If so, what is your evidence? What proportion of people would you expect this to happen to?
- if somebody came to you who said that they were on a drug treatment for HIV, would you recommend to them they stop taking the treatment?
-is it pure coincidence that you also believe conspiracy fantasies about 9/11?
You have so far answered none of these questions, but tried to smother them in vast volumes of irrelevance. Please answer all these questions in concise statements without doing massive cut and pastes. Originally Posted by essence
1. Annual death statistics attributed to AIDS in the US, Europe (and in other countries) are not conclusive. Mortality rates cannot be trusted since any number of other historically referenced diseases are classified by the CDC as being AIDS.
As for treatment, the therapeutic remedy for "AIDS" (and most illnesses) is to address the underlying true cause of a disease, improve nutrition and hygiene, abstain from drug abuse and chemical exposure, avoid antibiotics and reduce stress levels.
2. Whether it exists or not, comparative data analysis, personal experience and common sense tells me that HIV is harmless - and it certainly doesn't cause 'AIDS.'
3. Given the nurturing support it requires, I think the mind, body and an intact, strong immune system are together sufficient to successfully combat any disease. With regard to HIV, see #2 above.
4. I have already suggested to a few people that they cease taking deadly antiretroviral chemicals and/or protease inhibitors; and I will make the same recommendation whenever possible.
5. I think you'll find me (and others) more receptive to debate when you confine your inquiry/refutal to the subject at hand - without the ad hominem inferences of which you're so fond.
Now if I may, please allow me ask you a few questions.
If through discerning judgement, reason and logic you discovered that HIV was a hoax, that millions of lives have been subsequently destroyed due to this fraud and still millions more people were in danger of being poisoned with deadly AIDS 'drugs,' how would that make you feel?
What, if any, actions would you take to prevent such a genocide from continuing?
Are you so invested in popular dogma, the religion of HIV=AIDS, to the point that your faculties of reason and moral judgement have been impaired?
Is it more important for you to somehow discredit me (the messenger) instead of learning the truth about HIV/AIDS and thus possibly sharing this information with others to help your fellow humankind?
Thank you.
.
- essence
- 02-20-2012, 06:35 PM
I tend to ignore bullshit, childish attacks, and assholes in general - however, since your request included the word *please*, I'll make an exception in this instance.Thank you for the reply. I have highlighted the bits I find most interesting
1. Annual death statistics attributed to AIDS in the US, Europe (and in other countries) are not conclusive. Mortality rates cannot be trusted since any number of other historically referenced diseases are classified by the CDC as being AIDS.
As for treatment, the therapeutic remedy for "AIDS" (and most illnesses) is to address the underlying true cause of a disease, improve nutrition and hygiene, abstain from drug abuse and chemical exposure, avoid antibiotics and reduce stress levels.
2. Whether it exists or not, comparative data analysis, personal experience and common sense tells me that HIV is harmless - and it certainly doesn't cause 'AIDS.'
3. Given the nurturing support it requires, I think the mind, body and an intact, strong immune system are together sufficient to successfully combat any disease. With regard to HIV, see #2 above.
4. I have already suggested to a few people that they cease taking deadly antiretroviral chemicals and/or protease inhibitors; and I will make the same recommendation whenever possible.
5. I think you'll find me (and others) more receptive to debate when you confine your inquiry/refutal to the subject at hand - without the ad hominem inferences of which you're so fond.
Now if I may, please allow me ask you a few questions.
If through discerning judgement, reason and logic you discovered that HIV was a hoax, that millions of lives have been subsequently destroyed due to this fraud and still millions more people were in danger of being poisoned with deadly AIDS 'drugs,' how would that make you feel?
What, if any, actions would you take to prevent such a genocide from continuing?
Are you so invested in popular dogma, the religion of HIV=AIDS, to the point that your faculties of reason and moral judgement have been impaired?
Is it more important for you to somehow discredit me (the messenger) instead of learning the truth about HIV/AIDS and thus possibly sharing this information with others to help your fellow humankind?
Thank you.
. Originally Posted by Mr. Bill
- Mr. Bill
- 02-20-2012, 06:42 PM
Thank you for the reply. I have highlighted the bits I find most interesting Originally Posted by essenceSince you've elected to omit them, I can only assume that in your current mindset, you feel that I do not deserve the same courtesy of your answers - as cordially requested.
.
- Mr. Bill
- 02-20-2012, 07:22 PM
Manipulated, Deceptive AIDS Statistics
The "AIDS epidemic" in the USA and Europe is fundamentally different from that of Africa, giving the appearance of two completely unrelated epidemics. In the USA and Europe, it is primarily males who are affected, either as homosexuals or drug addicts; no other virus or sexually transmitted disease is so selective as this. In the USA and Europe, "AIDS" is identified through disease symptoms long known, observed and recognized by physicians in those nations (plus HIV traces, of course).
By contrast, African AIDS is composed of disease symptoms different from those observed in the USA or Europe, but typical of those long observed by physicians in Africa. The African epidemic also afflicts roughly equal numbers of males and females. In the USA and Europe, the epidemic is not primarily affecting the weakest members of society, such as infants and the elderly, who usually are among the first to fall from infectious illness. Rather, HIV is touted as affecting mainly the biologically strongest, young adults in their 20s and 30s. Again, these sex-selective, age-selective, and geographically-skewed epidemiological differences are not characteristic of other microbe-borne diseases.
In Africa, there is little money for public health measures, and so the expensive HIV-antibody test, or "AIDS test" is infrequently administered. The diagnosis of "AIDS", as accepted today by the World Health Organization and other public health bodies, is often the mere presentation of symptoms of the various AIDS-correlated diseases. Through such creative book-keeping, vast numbers of people in Africa are said to be dying of unproven and undocumented AIDS.
Traditional mortality factors at work in Africa, which have taken a terrible death toll over the centuries (famine, malnutrition, pestilent parasites, infectious organisms, and widespread African STD's,) are ignored in this rush to classify the problem as a malady caused by the single virus HIV.
The epidemiology of AIDS in Africa certainly provides no supporting evidence for the HIV hypothesis, and in any case, cannot be used to make any meaningful predictions about the future health of Americans or Europeans.
In the USA, deceptive statistical manipulations have inflated the numbers of HIV infected individuals and AIDS deaths.
Firstly, the CDC early got into the habit of classifying HIV-positive individuals according to political, and not scientific criteria. For example, immigrants testing positive for HIV often would not acknowledge their homosexuality or illegal drug use. Drug use is a deportable offense for immigrants, and many foreign nations have much stricter social taboos about homosexuality. Therefore, these groups routinely had fewer reported homosexuals and drug users, inflating the "unknown" category.
When the general public began to associate this "unknown" factor to specific nationalities, prejudice developed, and for social reasons, entire groups were simply reclassified into the "heterosexual HIV transmission" category. Revised figures were then released by the CDC, showing an upward spurt in the numbers "infected with HIV through heterosexual contact." The newspapers would then routinely announce "a dramatic surge in the numbers people infected with AIDS by heterosexual transmission", with extrapolations out to the year 2000 suggesting the entire world would be infected: eg, "everyone is at risk".
Only a few journalists, like Michael Fumento, would report the real reasons for the "increase".
The definition of what constitutes AIDS has been constantly expanding, with more diseases being added to the list with each passing year. Today, not only are tuberculosis, pneumonia, syphilis, herpes, anemia, dementia, Kaposi's sarcoma, and other long-known diseases often lumped under the banner of AIDS, but problems such as chronic fatigue syndrome and yeast infections are being redefined as having a background in HIV infection. These latter two problems afflict women in high proportions, and their reclassification as "AIDS indicators" have unscientifically inflated the "heterosexual risk" category. When such new disease classifications occur, by magic the numbers of "infected AIDS victims" balloons, all without solid epidemiological evidence or proof.
The news media, of course, reports these new figures with the usual drama and lack of critical scrutiny.
.
The "AIDS epidemic" in the USA and Europe is fundamentally different from that of Africa, giving the appearance of two completely unrelated epidemics. In the USA and Europe, it is primarily males who are affected, either as homosexuals or drug addicts; no other virus or sexually transmitted disease is so selective as this. In the USA and Europe, "AIDS" is identified through disease symptoms long known, observed and recognized by physicians in those nations (plus HIV traces, of course).
By contrast, African AIDS is composed of disease symptoms different from those observed in the USA or Europe, but typical of those long observed by physicians in Africa. The African epidemic also afflicts roughly equal numbers of males and females. In the USA and Europe, the epidemic is not primarily affecting the weakest members of society, such as infants and the elderly, who usually are among the first to fall from infectious illness. Rather, HIV is touted as affecting mainly the biologically strongest, young adults in their 20s and 30s. Again, these sex-selective, age-selective, and geographically-skewed epidemiological differences are not characteristic of other microbe-borne diseases.
In Africa, there is little money for public health measures, and so the expensive HIV-antibody test, or "AIDS test" is infrequently administered. The diagnosis of "AIDS", as accepted today by the World Health Organization and other public health bodies, is often the mere presentation of symptoms of the various AIDS-correlated diseases. Through such creative book-keeping, vast numbers of people in Africa are said to be dying of unproven and undocumented AIDS.
Traditional mortality factors at work in Africa, which have taken a terrible death toll over the centuries (famine, malnutrition, pestilent parasites, infectious organisms, and widespread African STD's,) are ignored in this rush to classify the problem as a malady caused by the single virus HIV.
The epidemiology of AIDS in Africa certainly provides no supporting evidence for the HIV hypothesis, and in any case, cannot be used to make any meaningful predictions about the future health of Americans or Europeans.
In the USA, deceptive statistical manipulations have inflated the numbers of HIV infected individuals and AIDS deaths.
Firstly, the CDC early got into the habit of classifying HIV-positive individuals according to political, and not scientific criteria. For example, immigrants testing positive for HIV often would not acknowledge their homosexuality or illegal drug use. Drug use is a deportable offense for immigrants, and many foreign nations have much stricter social taboos about homosexuality. Therefore, these groups routinely had fewer reported homosexuals and drug users, inflating the "unknown" category.
When the general public began to associate this "unknown" factor to specific nationalities, prejudice developed, and for social reasons, entire groups were simply reclassified into the "heterosexual HIV transmission" category. Revised figures were then released by the CDC, showing an upward spurt in the numbers "infected with HIV through heterosexual contact." The newspapers would then routinely announce "a dramatic surge in the numbers people infected with AIDS by heterosexual transmission", with extrapolations out to the year 2000 suggesting the entire world would be infected: eg, "everyone is at risk".
Only a few journalists, like Michael Fumento, would report the real reasons for the "increase".
The definition of what constitutes AIDS has been constantly expanding, with more diseases being added to the list with each passing year. Today, not only are tuberculosis, pneumonia, syphilis, herpes, anemia, dementia, Kaposi's sarcoma, and other long-known diseases often lumped under the banner of AIDS, but problems such as chronic fatigue syndrome and yeast infections are being redefined as having a background in HIV infection. These latter two problems afflict women in high proportions, and their reclassification as "AIDS indicators" have unscientifically inflated the "heterosexual risk" category. When such new disease classifications occur, by magic the numbers of "infected AIDS victims" balloons, all without solid epidemiological evidence or proof.
The news media, of course, reports these new figures with the usual drama and lack of critical scrutiny.
.
- Sa_artman
- 02-21-2012, 12:16 AM
What Mr. Bill fails to point out is that he obviously has not done an ounce of actual research other than cut-and-paste. So in the interest of annoying the 'they used paper planes on 9/11' fool...
Drug-Associated HIV Transmission Continues in the United States
View PDF 
En espańol Sharing syringes and other equipment for drug injection is a well known route of HIV transmission, yet injection drug use contributes to the epidemic’s spread far beyond the circle of those who inject. People who have sex with an injection drug user (IDU) also are at risk for infection through the sexual transmission of HIV. Children born to mothers who contracted HIV through sharing needles or having sex with an IDU may become infected as well.
Since the epidemic began, injection drug use has directly and indirectly accounted for more than one-third (36%) of AIDS cases in the United States. This disturbing trend appears to be continuing. Of the 42,156 new cases of AIDS reported in 2000, 11,635 (28%) were IDU-associated.
Racial and ethnic minority populations in the United States are most heavily affected by IDU-associated AIDS. In 2000, IDU-associated AIDS accounted for 26% of all AIDS cases among African American and 31% among Hispanic adults and adolescents, compared with 19% of all cases among white adults/adolescents.
IDU-associated AIDS accounts for a larger proportion of cases among adolescent and adult women than among men. Since the epidemic began, 57% of all AIDS cases among women have been attributed to injection drug use or sex with partners who inject drugs, compared with 31% of cases among men.
Noninjection drugs (such as "crack" cocaine) also contribute to the spread of the epidemic when users trade sex for drugs or money, or when they engage in risky sexual behaviors that they might not engage in when sober. One CDC study of more than 2,000 young adults in three inner-city neighborhoods found that crack smokers were three times more likely to be infected with HIV than non-smokers.
Strategies for IDUs Must Be Comprehensive
Comprehensive HIV prevention interventions for substance abusers must provide education on how to prevent transmission through sex.
Numerous studies have documented that drug users are at risk for HIV through both drug-related and sexual behaviors, which places their partners at risk as well. Comprehensive programs must provide the information, skills, and support necessary to reduce both risks. Researchers have found that many interventions aimed at reducing sexual risk behaviors among drug users have significantly increased the practice of safer sex (e.g., using condoms, avoiding unprotected sex) among participants.
Drug abuse treatment is HIV prevention, but drug treatment slots are scarce.
In the United States, drug use and dependence are widespread in the general population. Experts generally agree that there are about 1 million active IDUs in this country, as well as many others who use noninjection drugs or abuse alcohol. Clearly, the need for substance abuse treatment vastly exceeds our capacity to provide it. Effective substance abuse treatment that helps people stop using drugs not only eliminates the risk of HIV transmission from sharing contaminated syringes, but, for many, reduces the risk of engaging in risky behaviors that might result in sexual transmission.
For injection drug users who cannot or will not stop injecting drugs, using sterile needles and syringes only once remains the safest, most effective approach for limiting HIV transmission.
To minimize the risk of HIV transmission, IDUs must have access to interventions that can help them protect their health. They must be advised to always use sterile injection equipment; warned never to reuse needles, syringes, and other injection equipment; and told that using syringes that have been cleaned with bleach or other disinfectants is not as safe as using new, sterile syringes.
Having access to sterile injection equipment is important, but it is not enough.
Preventing the spread of HIV through injection drug use requires a comprehensive approach that incorporates several basic principles:
HIV prevention and treatment, substance abuse prevention, and sexually transmitted disease treatment and prevention services must be better integrated to take advantage of the multiple opportunities for intervention--first, to help the uninfected stay that way; second, to help infected people stay healthy; and third, to help infected individuals initiate and sustain behaviors that will keep themselves safe and prevent transmission to others.
Drug-Associated HIV Transmission Continues in the United States
View PDF En espańol Sharing syringes and other equipment for drug injection is a well known route of HIV transmission, yet injection drug use contributes to the epidemic’s spread far beyond the circle of those who inject. People who have sex with an injection drug user (IDU) also are at risk for infection through the sexual transmission of HIV. Children born to mothers who contracted HIV through sharing needles or having sex with an IDU may become infected as well.Since the epidemic began, injection drug use has directly and indirectly accounted for more than one-third (36%) of AIDS cases in the United States. This disturbing trend appears to be continuing. Of the 42,156 new cases of AIDS reported in 2000, 11,635 (28%) were IDU-associated.Racial and ethnic minority populations in the United States are most heavily affected by IDU-associated AIDS. In 2000, IDU-associated AIDS accounted for 26% of all AIDS cases among African American and 31% among Hispanic adults and adolescents, compared with 19% of all cases among white adults/adolescents.
IDU-associated AIDS accounts for a larger proportion of cases among adolescent and adult women than among men. Since the epidemic began, 57% of all AIDS cases among women have been attributed to injection drug use or sex with partners who inject drugs, compared with 31% of cases among men.
Noninjection drugs (such as "crack" cocaine) also contribute to the spread of the epidemic when users trade sex for drugs or money, or when they engage in risky sexual behaviors that they might not engage in when sober. One CDC study of more than 2,000 young adults in three inner-city neighborhoods found that crack smokers were three times more likely to be infected with HIV than non-smokers.
Strategies for IDUs Must Be Comprehensive
Comprehensive HIV prevention interventions for substance abusers must provide education on how to prevent transmission through sex.
Numerous studies have documented that drug users are at risk for HIV through both drug-related and sexual behaviors, which places their partners at risk as well. Comprehensive programs must provide the information, skills, and support necessary to reduce both risks. Researchers have found that many interventions aimed at reducing sexual risk behaviors among drug users have significantly increased the practice of safer sex (e.g., using condoms, avoiding unprotected sex) among participants.
Drug abuse treatment is HIV prevention, but drug treatment slots are scarce.
In the United States, drug use and dependence are widespread in the general population. Experts generally agree that there are about 1 million active IDUs in this country, as well as many others who use noninjection drugs or abuse alcohol. Clearly, the need for substance abuse treatment vastly exceeds our capacity to provide it. Effective substance abuse treatment that helps people stop using drugs not only eliminates the risk of HIV transmission from sharing contaminated syringes, but, for many, reduces the risk of engaging in risky behaviors that might result in sexual transmission.
For injection drug users who cannot or will not stop injecting drugs, using sterile needles and syringes only once remains the safest, most effective approach for limiting HIV transmission.
To minimize the risk of HIV transmission, IDUs must have access to interventions that can help them protect their health. They must be advised to always use sterile injection equipment; warned never to reuse needles, syringes, and other injection equipment; and told that using syringes that have been cleaned with bleach or other disinfectants is not as safe as using new, sterile syringes.
Having access to sterile injection equipment is important, but it is not enough.
Preventing the spread of HIV through injection drug use requires a comprehensive approach that incorporates several basic principles:
- ensure coordination and collaboration among all providers of services to IDUs, their sex partners, and their children,
- ensure coverage, access to, and quality of interventions,
- recognize and overcome stigma associated with injection drug use, and
- tailor services and programs to the diverse populations and characteristics of IDUs.
- preventing initiation of drug injection,
- using community outreach programs to reach drug users on the streets,
- improving access to high quality substance abuse treatment programs,
- instituting HIV prevention programs in jails and prisons,
- providing health care for HIV-infected IDUs, and
- making HIV risk-reduction counseling and testing available for IDUs and their sex partners.
HIV prevention and treatment, substance abuse prevention, and sexually transmitted disease treatment and prevention services must be better integrated to take advantage of the multiple opportunities for intervention--first, to help the uninfected stay that way; second, to help infected people stay healthy; and third, to help infected individuals initiate and sustain behaviors that will keep themselves safe and prevent transmission to others.
- why does AIDs no longer kills millions (in the US and Europe at least) and has become a treatable condition?
- do you believe HIV exists?
- do you believe that the immune system alone will eradicate HIV from the body from somebody chronocally affected? If so, what is your evidence? What proportion of people would you expect this to happen to?
- if somebody came to you who said that they were on a drug treatment for HIV, would you recommend to them they stop taking the treatment?
-is it pure coincidence that you also believe conspiracy fantasies about 9/11?
You have so far answered none of these questions, but tried to smother them in vast volumes of irrelevance. Please answer all these questions in concise statements without doing massive cut and pastes. Originally Posted by essence