THE SAME PLAYBOOK, INVENT A FAKE DISEASE, BLAME THE SYMPTOMS ON THE FAKE DISEASE THAT ARE ACTUALLY CAUSED BY SOMETHING ELSE, INVENT A DRUG TO TREAT THE FAKE DISEASE, KILL PEOPLE WITH THE DRUG AS YOU BLAME THE DISEASE AND MAKE IT SEEM MORE REAL, GET EVERYONE FREAKED OUT AND HAVE THEM BEG FOR A VACCINE AND RINSE AND REPEAT. HERE WE ARE TODAY.

THE AIDS HOAX – Africa Speaks.com

http://www.weeklydig.com/dig/content/3593.aspx

³As to diseases, make a habit of two things-to help, or at least to do no
harm.² -Hippocrates, 5th Century B.C.E. Greek Physician, regarded as the
father of medicine.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS, 42 million
people around the world are infected with HIV, and nearly 22 million people
in Africa have died of AIDS. But AIDS isn’t a single disease; it’s a
collection of diseases. When people are said to die of AIDS, they’re known
to die of a particular disease or condition, such as pneumonia,
tuberculosis, malaria or basic malnutrition. AIDS researchers claim that HIV
plays a role in the development of these illnesses, but in spite of this
claim, 20 years of AIDS research has failed to prove causation between HIV
infection and any so-called AIDS disease (as explored in ³The AIDS Debate²
parts one and two). So why do we call them AIDS deaths?

In the US, AIDS is defined as a collection of 29 previously-known conditions
including yeast infections, hepatitis, the flu, pneumonia, tuberculosis and
Kaposi’s Sarcoma. These conditions are not known to be caused by HIV.
Nevertheless, the one thing that classifies any one of these conditions as
AIDS is a positive HIV-antibody test.

But even if HIV was found to cause these previously known conditions, a
problem remains. The HIV-antibody tests do not diagnose actual
HIV-infection. Instead, they look for non-specific antibody reactions in
your blood to proteins in the HIV-test. The test manufacturers claim that
the proteins stand in for HIV, but in reality, none of the test proteins
have been proven to be specific to HIV. These tests are, in fact, so
nonspecific that they cross-react with nearly 70 other documented
conditions, including the flu, previous vaccinations, blood transfusions,
arthritis, alcoholic hepatitis, drug use, yeast infections and even
pregnancy, as well as conditions endemic in Africa: tuberculosis, parasitic
infection, leprosy and malaria. Because no HIV test can actually find HIV,
not a single HIV-test has been approved by the FDA for diagnosing
HIV-infection.

In light of this nonspecific, cross-reacting test, how does the World Health
Organization (WHO) diagnose AIDS in Africa?

Simple: they don’t require any test at all. In 1985, the WHO created a new
definition of AIDS for African nations and third world countries. The WHO’s
³Bangui Definition² allows Africans with common physical symptoms including
diarrhea, fever, weight loss, itching and coughing to be automatically
designated as AIDS patients, with no HIV test. But these very symptoms
define life for the majority of Africans who lack essentials like sufficient
food, safe drinking water, proper sanitation and basic medical care. These
symptoms are also synonymous with the biggest killers on the continent:
malaria, infectious diarrhea and tuberculosis.

Western AIDS organizations are working to get toxic AIDS drugs into the
hands of African governments, but what’s the use of potentially deadly AIDS
pharmaceuticals to people suffering from poverty-related diseases like
chronic tuberculosis and malaria infection, or to pregnant mothers whose
blood cross-reacts with the nonspecific HIV tests?

To answer these questions, I spoke with AIDS researchers who’ve worked in
Africa and studied the African AIDS epidemic.

Dr. Christian Fiala is a medical doctor and specialist in obstetrics and
gynecology in Vienna. He’s worked extensively in Uganda and Thailand
researching AIDS.

Dr. Rodney Richards was one of the founding scientists for the biotech
company Amgen where he helped develop some of the first HIV tests. Richards
currently works full-time researching AIDS.

The interviews were conducted separately and integrated into a dialogue.
Individual points-of-view belong to individual speakers.

How is AIDS diagnosed in Africa?

Christian Fiala: Your readers may be surprised to learn that AIDS in Africa
is diagnosed completely differently than in Europe or the US. In Africa, an
AIDS diagnosis can be made based on commonly occurring physical symptoms
alone. This is ironic, because AIDS is a collection of diseases, and has no
uniform symptoms. Even the co-founder of HIV theory, Luc Montagnier, admits
that AIDS has no specific clinical symptoms.

How was this new AIDS definition devised?

Fiala: In 1985 the WHO held a meeting in Bangui, the capital of the Central
African Republic. A WHO official, Joseph McCormick, wrote about it in his
book Level 4: Virus Hunters of the CDC.

He wrote: ³If I could get everyone at the WHO meeting in Bangui to agree on
a single, simple definition of what an AIDS case was in Africa, then,
imperfect as the definition might be, we could actually start counting the
cases…²

This is what’s known as the Bangui Definition.

How does the Bangui definition define AIDS?

Fiala: There are two categories of symptoms, major and minor. A patient is
given an AIDS diagnosis when they have two major symptoms and one minor
symptom. The major symptoms are weight loss, chronic diarrhea and chronic
fever. The minor symptoms include coughing and generalized itching.

Let me clarify, based on the WHO’s definition, if you have a fever, a cough
and diarrhea in Africa, then you have AIDS?

Fiala: That’s correct.

That seems absurd.

Fiala: It is. It’s more absurd when you understand how common these symptoms
are in resource-poor settings like sub-Saharan Africa. To begin with, less
than 50 percent of Africans have access to safe drinking water. Over 60
percent have no sanitation. Most African villages don’t have sewage systems.
Human and animal excrements mix with the water supply. People drink this
water and ingest infectious parasites and bacteria. As a result, dysentery
is endemic.

When your intestines are full of infectious microbes, you’ll likely develop
a fever. Your body will try to purge itself by expelling the bacteria as
quickly as possible. This is infectious diarrhea, and it’s incredibly common
in Africa.

Diarrhea drains liquid, salts, minerals and nutrients from the body. It
weakens the immune system. When you have no safe water, you’ll have diarrhea
chronically. When you have chronic diarrhea, you can’t help but to lose
weight.

At this point, you’ve fulfilled the major symptom criteria in the African
definition for AIDS. So you need one minor symptom, like generalized itching
or coughing. In Uganda, a so-called ³AIDS epicenter,² 80 percent of houses
have floors made of packed soil or cow dung. An entire family lives on this
floor. There are, on average, seven children per family, all living in this
room. This is not what we in the US and Europe call proper housing, and it’s
easy to see how a problem like ³generalized itching² might come up. At this
point, an African suffering from itching, diarrhea and weight loss should be
– according to the WHO – officially reported as an AIDS patient. The Bangui
Definition simply relabels symptoms of poverty as AIDS.

The second problem with the Bangui Definition is Tuberculosis. TB is very
widespread in Africa. It’s a bacterial infection that infects the lungs. TB
is spread by coughing, and it’s highly infectious. The typical symptoms of
Tuberculosis are fever, weight loss and coughing. This is exactly what is
required for an AIDS diagnosis.

So if you have Tuberculosis in Africa, you can be diagnosed with AIDS?

Fiala: That’s correct. According to the WHO, the typical symptoms of TB
define AIDS in Africa.

Another problem with the Bangui Definition is malaria. Malaria is the most
widespread disease in Africa and tropical countries. It’s the leading cause
of death in Uganda. It’s spread by mosquitoes, so people are reinfected
several times a year. A great many people die every year, while the rest
develop a relative immunity, even though it’s wearing away at them. The
symptoms of malaria include fever, weight loss and fatigue. If you have a
cough or itching, and you have malaria in Africa, you can be diagnosed with
AIDS.

As if this wasn’t problematic enough, in some African countries, such as
Tanzania, health authorities have decided that a one-criteria diagnosis is
all they need. A patient exhibiting just one of the major symptoms –
diarrhea, fever or weight loss – can be given an AIDS diagnosis.

This is hardly scientific, and it’s very different from what people are told
about AIDS in Africa. The idea that there should be a different kind of AIDS
for Africans or Europeans or Americans defies the scientific definition of
viral infection. A single virus doesn’t cause different diseases in
different people or in different countries. A viral infection doesn’t vary
so wildly so as to create pelvic cancer in women, Kaposi’s sarcoma in gay
men, and tuberculosis in Africans. But this is what we’re asked to believe
about HIV.

What’s the treatment for TB and Malaria?

Fiala: The best treatment is prevention. The most effective way to reduce
all of these infectious diseases is to improve the standard of living and
hygiene for local residents – to provide safe, clean water; plentiful,
healthy food; proper housing and basic medical care. This is exactly how the
incidence of TB and other infectious diseases was dramatically reduced in
the US and Europe.

The treatment for malaria is well known and simple: treated mosquito nets
that protect villages; clean, safe, non-stagnant water; and the inexpensive,
highly efficient drugs that effectively fight the disease.

Why don’t African Countries have clean water systems?

Fiala: You could’ve asked that question 100 years ago in the US and Europe.
Sewage and water systems rely on economic development. We have these things
in the West because we know they’re absolutely essential, so we’ve invested
money and energy in them.

Many African nations don’t have the money to develop this infrastructure and
modernize the villages. The money they have is being re-routed into AIDS.
These countries are being pressured by international AIDS organizations to
take money out of rural development and put it into AIDS education, condom
distribution, abstinence campaigns and toxic AIDS pharmaceuticals.

We’re told that there are nearly 30 million African AIDS patients. This is
an enormous number of people. How are these cases counted?

Fiala: The United Nations AIDS organization (UNAIDS) and the WHO use various
computer modeling programs to come up with their numbers.

Rodney Richards: When you read about the millions of HIV-infected in Africa,
you may notice that the word ³estimated² precedes the number in the official
publications.

What does ³estimated² mean?

Richards: All WHO/UNAIDS reports of HIV-infection in Africa are “estimates”
based on HIV tests performed on blood samples taken at pregnancy clinics.
These global reports are created jointly by the WHO and UNAIDS.

Why is blood taken from pregnancy clinics?

Richards: In countries with little infrastructure, medical care is very
limited, and is generally reserved for the most vulnerable segment of the
population, such as infants and pregnant women. Even in the poorest
countries, there are pregnancy clinics serving expectant mothers and women
who’ve just given birth.

Pregnant women regularly line up at these clinics for a check-up that
includes a blood screening for syphilis. Syphilis infection is common in
many African countries, and must be treated before a baby’s birth, or the
child could die or be severely damaged.

Once a year, UNAIDS researchers collect leftover blood samples from these
clinics, and test them with a single HIV-antibody test called the Elisa. The
resulting number of HIV-positive results is fed into an epidemiological
computer modeling program (Epi-model) at the WHO headquarters in Geneva. The
Epi-model program then extrapolates the HIV-positive test results onto the
entire population – young and old; men, women and children. When we hear
about the number of people infected with HIV, it’s this number that’s being
reported.

How do reported numbers of HIV-infection correspond to actual number of
people tested?

Richards: The WHO/UNAIDS tells us that there are currently 30 million
HIV-positive Africans, yet less than one in a thousand of these people have
ever been tested. In South Africa, the WHO/UNAIDS reports 5 million people
are infected with HIV, but this number is based on only 4,000 actual
HIV-positive test results from pregnant women.

But even these positive test results are hardly indicative of HIV-infection.
The HIV-antibody tests used in these surveys are known to come up positive
based on cross-reactions with antibodies produced from malaria, TB and
parasitic infection – all common conditions in Africa. The test
manufacturers themselves warn that pregnancy is a known cause of false
positives.

Fiala: Testing pregnant women for HIV-infection is a self-fulfilling
prophecy, but pregnant women are the only people regularly tested for
HIV-infection in sub-Saharan Africa.

We’re told that 28 million people worldwide and 22 million Africans have
died of AIDS. How are AIDS deaths counted in Africa?

Richards: AIDS deaths are also estimates. The number of deaths is projected
from the Epi-model estimate of HIV-infections. It is assumed that if a
certain number of people are HIV-infected, then a certain number will die of
AIDS. This assumption is based on what researchers know historically about
disease progression in AIDS patients, primarily from studies done on
HIV-positive IV drug abusers and male homosexuals in the US and Europe.

Are these numbers accurate?

Richards: No, the numbers have been greatly inflated. For example, the
WHO/UNAIDS says that there has been 2.2 million AIDS deaths in Uganda so
far, but the Ugandan Ministry of Health records a cumulative total of only
56,000 AIDS deaths since the beginning of the epidemic. The WHO’s report is
33 times higher than the actual number of recorded, verified deaths.

As of the end of 2001, official government bodies in the developing world
have managed to account for only 7 percent of the cumulative AIDS deaths
that the WHO/UNAIDS claim have occurred. The Russian Federation can only
account for only 3 percent of the UNAIDS estimate of AIDS deaths. India has
2 percent of the UNAIDS estimate. China has only 1 percent.

If I understand correctly, the number of people we’re told have HIV and AIDS
in Africa is actually an inaccurate computer extrapolation based on test
results from non-specific, cross-reacting antibody tests given to pregnant
women?

Fiala: That’s correct.

And the number of AIDS deaths in Africa is a projection based on the
previous estimation, and is also greatly inflated?

Richards: That is also correct.

What does an AIDS diagnosis mean for an African with TB or malaria?

Fiala: In many African clinics, basic medical supplies like antibiotics are
extremely limited. A clinic may only have 10 bottles of antibiotics. AIDS
patients are frequently refused antibiotic treatment, because it’s assumed
that they’ll die, no matter what. Western doctors have made it clear that
AIDS is a fatal disease. Helping them is considered a waste of scarce
resources.

What’s the main AIDS organization in Uganda?

Fiala: TASO – The AIDS Support Organisation. They claim to be independent,
but they’re heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry. They’re currently
constructing buildings to prepare the ground for massive HIV testing, with
this non-specific, cross-reacting test, and to distribute toxic AIDS drugs.

In Africa, 50 percent of the population has no access to clean drinking
water and the vast majority lack even basic medical care. And the response
from multimillion dollar AIDS organization is to promote HIV testing, give
out condoms and to implement treatment with deadly AIDS drugs. These drugs
are similar or identical to chemotherapy drugs used in cancer treatment.
They work by stopping cell growth. They kill your body from the inside out.

Which AIDS drugs are being used in Africa?

Fiala: Boehringer, a pharmaceutical company, has been doing studies in
Uganda with a drug called Nevirapine. The FDA refused approval of Nevirapine
in the US for so-called mother to child transmission because it’s
ineffective and has deadly side effects, but this is exactly how the drug is
being used in Africa – on pregnant women and unborn children.

In one drug trial, 17 percent of patients taking Nevirapine developed liver
problems. A US health care worker taking Nevirapine had to have a liver
transplant to save his life as a result of drug toxicity. Five women in
South Africa died and dozens developed severe liver problems in a
combination AIDS drug trial that included Nevirapine.

The manufacturer’s warning label for Nevirapine itself states that patients
taking the drug have experienced: ³Severe, life-threatening and in some
cases fatal hepatotoxicity [liver damage],² and ³severe, life-threatening
skin reactions, including fatal cases.²

These are the most toxic drugs known to medicine, and they’re being applied
to the most vulnerable part of the population – pregnant mothers, unborn
children and newborns – all based on a faulty test, or no test at all, while
their actual food, shelter and water needs continue to be ignored.

What would actually help Africans is infrastructure development: proper
sanitation, safe water, basic medical care and plentiful, nutritive food.
This is simple, clear and logical. What’s astounding is that the UN is
recommending just the opposite.

In 1999 the UNAIDS commission gave its official recommendations to a meeting
of finance ministers representing various African countries. The UN’s exact
recommendations to African nations: to redirect billions of dollars from
health, infrastructure and rural development into AIDS – condoms, safe sex
lectures and deadly pharmaceuticals. This is not what these already
suffering people need to be healthy and successful. This is exactly how to
propagate death, disease and poverty.

Afterword:

If the AIDS story in Africa feels like a parody of a bureaucratic blunder,
take note: In April of this year, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
announced a new HIV testing strategy for the United States. Rather than
relying on voluntary HIV-testing, federal officials are urging the testing
of all pregnant women in the US, and are implementing measures to make
HIV-testing a routine part of hospital visits. The CDC is promoting a rapid
HIV-test for use in all federally funded clinics, as well as homeless
shelters, prisons and substance abuse treatment centers.

The HIV-antibody tests are known to cross-react with antibodies produced
during pregnancy, drug abuse and nearly 70 other common conditions, and no
HIV test is FDA approved to diagnose HIV infection. The standard medical
treatment for HIV infection is a combination of the most toxic drugs ever
manufactured.

³The AIDS Debate² series has explored the scientific and sociological
process that formed HIV theory, and the ramifications of a speculative
theory enforced upon a trusting, uninformed public.

We must ask ourselves, are we doing the best we can for sick people? Is the
best we can offer impoverished Africans AZT and Nevirapine? Is the best we
can do for drug-addicted mothers is force more drugs into their system? And
what about people unlucky enough to register HIV positive on these
scientifically unvalidated tests. Do they deserve to be told that they have
a fatal illness?

³As to diseases, make a habit of two things-to help, or at least to do no
harm.”

As for human beings, one thing’s for sure. We can always do better.

=====

This is the last in a series ofpowerful, concise, and highly informative articles written for the Weekly
Dig by Boston journalist Liam Scheff.

Liam’s commitment to covering the issue does not end here: The next story he
will tell is that of a New York mother whose adopted children were taken
away after doctors reported “suspected lack of compliance” in administering
their prescribed AIDS drugs regimen. Both children were remanded to a group
foster home for HIV positive minors where young people who refuse their
drugs are force fed treatments through surgically installed
gastro-intestinal tubes.

In approaching the organization Alive and Well – AIDS Alternatives for help, this woman told them of a 12
year-old former resident of the group home who died of an AIDS-drug induced
stroke.

Alive & Well’s best efforts to assist her legal battle have failed to gain
back custody of her children, I approached Liam with the idea of sharing her
harrowing and heartbreaking experiences with the public through an article.
Courageously, he’s agreed and is shopping for a publication to run it.

Please support reporting on the untold issues of AIDS with a letter to the
editor of the Weekly Dig. Your notes will encourage more coverage of this
topic. Write your letters to:

blakman:
hotep

AIDS is nothing more than the diseases already present on the planet
tb, malaria, chronic diarrehea, leprosy, malnutrition, yeast infections, hepatitis..

they go untreated so people die and these are what are registered as AIDS deaths, a scam.

think about it , by labeling Black people worldwide as disease prone peoples
(cancer, heart disease, hiv, tb, malaria, …) constantly in the impostor jews media we become non important in the worlds psyche and we adopt the same attitude that we are ‘doomed’ to die, making us easily removed from society

when in truth whites used to be 40 percent of the world population just two hundred years ago now they are around 10 percent, so who’s really dying off?

the impostor jews media called Black men an ‘endangered species’ all thru the eighties but were still here and our families are outproducing theirs

white birth rates are declining worldwide

How to diagnose AIDS

A crisis whose urgency may depend as much upon definitions as disease is AIDS in Africa. The topic has generated intense media exposure…

But what has not received media attention is a troubling realization. Based on standard medical practice, we actually have no idea how widespread the disease is in Africa. There are two related problems — the reliability of HIV prevalence estimates, often nationwide extrapolations from selected sites, and the accuracy of a full-blown AIDS diagnosis. Not only are public health figures in several African regions dubious in general (as are nearly all government data in these areas), practically every commentator speaking out neglects to mention what may well be the heart of the matter: The criteria for declaring an AIDS case in Africa do not include an actual blood test to determine whether or not the patient is HIV positive.

According to what is known as the Bangui definition; named for the city in the Central African Republic where it was adopted in 1985, a diagnosis of AIDS could be given in the presence of features such as “prolonged fevers (for a month or more), weight loss of 10 percent or greater, and prolonged diarrhea.” But no blood test is required. That is, deaths that heretofore were attributed to malaria, dysentery, or tuberculosis, for instance, may now be classified and accounted as AIDS deaths.

As a November, 1986 article in Science Magazine: AIDS in Africa: An Epidemiologic Paradigm observed, “while pediatric HIV disease in Africa resembles HIV infections in children in the United States, it is difficult to distinguish HIV-associated disease in Africa on clinical grounds, where failure to thrive, malnutrition, and pulmonary disease are common pediatric problems.”

Hence, while estimates of the extent of HIV infection have been forthcoming (ideally based on blood analysis), the true scope of the crisis is simply unknown. There could be vastly more cases lurking than have been dreamed of in the current nightmare or there could be substantially less.

A medically precise definition of an African AIDS case, though difficult to obtain, is an essential tool in fighting the disease…. It would compound tragedy if the world were to mobilize to save Africa — only to find that it had sent condoms and AZT, when what was most needed on the docks in Maputo and Luanda were clean water and antibiotics.

blakman:
SOUTH AFRICAN ANC EXPOSES THE BIG LIE!
Two years after they allowed the Western governments and other critics to castigate President Thabo Mbeki for his brave stance on the AIDS hoax in South Africa, the ANC finally released an extensive investigation that backs up Mbeki’s skepticism.

CASTRO HLONGWANE: CARAVANS, CATS, GEESE FOOT & MOUTH AND STATISTICS.

HIV/AIDS and the Struggle for the Humanisation of the African.

(Excerpted from a larger ANC Study)

This monograph discusses the vexed question of HIV/AIDS.

It is based on the assumption that to understand this matter, it is necessary to study it.

It does not accept the assertion that only scientists and medical doctors are capable of understanding this medical condition. Written essentially by non-scientists, it nevertheless seeks to understand the scientific logic of the thesis of HIV/AIDS.

It accepts that there are many unanswered scientific questions about the HIV/AIDS thesis and many hypotheses about this matter that are falsely presented as facts.

It recognises the reality that there are many people and institutions across the world that have a vested interest in the propagation of the HIV/AIDS thesis, because they have too much to lose if any important element of this thesis is proved to be false.

It accepts that these include the pharmaceutical companies, which are marketing anti-retroviral drugs that can only be sold, and therefore generate profits, on the basis of the universal acceptance of the assertion that “HIV causes AIDS”.

It also accepts that among those that share the vested interests of these companies are governments and official health institutions, inter-governmental organisations, official medical licensing and registration institutions, scientists and academics, media organisations, non-governmental organisations and individuals.

It recognises that there are many well-meaning institutions and individuals in our country and the rest of the world who have innocently accepted and propagate the positions advanced by those who share these vested interests.

It accepts that these have to be exposed to the truth, in the conviction that their consciences will enable them to side with the truth against the untruth, provided that they are informed of the truth.

It also accepts that the HIV/AIDS thesis as it has affected and affects Africans and black people in general, is also informed by deeply entrenched and centuries-old white racist beliefs and concepts about Africans and black people. At the same time as this thesis is based on these racist beliefs and concepts, it makes a powerful contribution to the further entrenchment and popularisation of racism.

It further recognises the reality that, driven by fear of their destruction as a people because of an allegedly unstoppable plague, Africans and black people themselves have been persuaded to join and support a campaign whose result is further to entrench their dehumanisation.

In this context, it recognises the reality that in our own country, the unstated assumption about everything to do with HIV/AIDS is that, as a so-called “pandemic”, HIV/AIDS is exclusively a problem manifested among the African people.

It recognises the fact that for the whole truth to emerge, and nothing but the truth, a difficult struggle will have to be waged to overcome the determined resistance of those who have a vested interest in the perpetuation and entrenchment of the currently dominant HIV/AIDS propositions.

It also recognises the frightening and dangerous reality that some of those who share this vested interest are ready and willing to do everything in their power to ensure that their view prevails, globally. This includes the use of any means and measures whatsoever, with no holds barred, to destroy and remove all those who oppose them.

It therefore warns that those who open their minds to what is contained in this document as a whole should understand that they expose themselves to many hazards and dangers that may pose a threat to their careers, their future and their lives.

The monograph accepts that our people, and others elsewhere in Africa and the rest of the world, face a serious problem of AIDS.

It accepts the determination that AIDS stands for Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome.

It accepts that a Syndrome is a collection of diseases. It proceeds from the assumption that the collection of diseases generally described as belonging to the AIDS syndrome have known causes.

It rejects as illogical the proposition that AIDS is a single disease caused by a singular virus, HIV.

In other words, it accepts that AIDS is either a syndrome or a disease. It cannot be both. Its acronym correctly describes it as a syndrome. For this reason, it is not described as AIDD.

It accepts that an essential part of AIDS is immune deficiency. This constitutes the ID in AIDS.

It accepts that this immune deficiency may be acquired, accounting for the A in AIDS.

It asserts that there are many conditions that cause acquired immune deficiency, including malnutrition and disease.

It therefore argues that, in our situation, many and varied interventions have to be made to protect and strengthen the immune systems of our people.

It accepts that these include attention to our nutrition and the eradication of the diseases of poverty that afflict millions of our people.

It accepts that a vaccine should be developed to strengthen the immune system so as to reduce its exposure to the possibility of deficiency.

It accepts that HIV may be one of the causes of this immune deficiency, but cannot be the only cause.

It accepts the proposition that currently existing kits used to check the existence or otherwise of HIV give a “positive” result in response to a variety of medical conditions.

Accordingly, it accepts the assertion that these kits do not establish the presence or absence in the human body of HIV.

It accepts the proposition that these kits detect the presence of antibodies produced by the immune system to fight conditions in the human body that the immune system identifies as a threat to good health.

It rejects as baseless and self-serving the assertion that millions of our people are HIV positive.

It supports the proposition that correct medical practice demands that each person should be treated for any illness identified through clinical examination, regardless of their “HIV status”.

It therefore rejects the condemnation of people to a slow death on the basis that they are HIV infected, which condition cannot be reversed.

It accepts the proposition that anti-retroviral drugs can neither cure AIDS nor destroy the HI virus.

It therefore rejects the suggestion that the challenge of AIDS in our country can be solved by resort to anti-retroviral drugs.

It rejects the assertion that, among the nations, we have the highest incidence of HIV infection and AIDS deaths, caused by sexual immorality among our people.

It rejects the claim that AIDS is the single largest cause of death in our country.

It argues that we must understand properly and comprehensively the burden of disease and death in our country and ensure that we follow appropriate health and other policies to address this burden, including treatment.

It accepts that the pursuit of the objective of health for all must continue to be one of the central objectives of our government and society.

It argues that while those who have commercial and political interests in the promotion of anti-retroviral drugs, and insulting our people, pursue an agenda aimed at minimising and denying the real causes of illness and death in our country, we have a responsibility to understand these real causes of illness and death.

It rejects the argument to “break the silence” about AIDS by imposing the silence of the grave about diseases of poverty.

It is opposed to the medicalisation of poverty.

It argues that an all-round approach should be adopted to deal with AIDS, focusing in particular on prevention of any infection or condition that might lead to immune deficiency, including sexually transmitted diseases.

It argues that an all-round approach should be adopted to deal with all diseases that affect our people.

It is based on the proposition that each one of our citizens has a responsibility to take all necessary measures to protect his or her health.

It rejects as fundamentally incorrect and anti-democratic the attempt to transfer the responsibility to look after oneself to the state, which seeks to turn the state into an omnipotent apparatus that must even police the sexual activities of every individual South African.

It asserts that it is important that the government and society as a whole should ensure that the citizen has all the necessary information to be able to discharge the responsibility to conduct himself or herself in a responsible manner.

The monograph accepts the responsibility of the state to do everything it can to provide adequate and affordable health care for all our citizens. This must include treatment of the so-called opportunistic diseases, including TB and STD’s.

It argues for loyalty to the truth and a refusal on the part of the government and the people to succumb to pressures that are directed at serving particular commercial and political interests at the expense of the health of our people.

It rejects the assertion that, as Africans, we are prone to rape and abuse of women and that we uphold a value system that belongs to the world of wild animals, and that this accounts for the alleged “high incidence” of “HIV infection” in our country.

It enjoins all our people to think for themselves, refusing to be intimidated or terrorised by those who have powerful voices and the backing of the fabulous wealth we do not have, because we are poor.

It recognises that the effort it took to produce this monograph will only be meaningful to the extent that we, as Africans, have the courage, integrity and self-confidence to think and act independently and correctly, in our own interest.

It accepts that ours are a courageous, principled and confident people, who have demonstrated these qualities over many centuries.

The monograph is based on the recognition of the fact that the HIV/AIDS issue is both scientific/medical and profoundly political.

It accepts the proposition that despite the reality that our world is driven by a value system based on financial profit and individual material reward, the notion of human solidarity remains a valid precept governing human behaviour.

The monograph seeks to advance the cause both of better health for all our people and the recovery of our dignity as black people and human beings. These are fundamental to our very being as a movement and a people and therefore do not permit of any compromise.

For centuries we have carried the burden of the crimes and falsities of ‘scientific’ Eurocentrism, its dogmas imposed upon our being as the brands of a definitive, ‘universal’ truth.

Against this, we have, in struggle, made the statement to which we will remain loyal – that we are human and African!

Because we are human, we shall no longer permit of control by a colonial mother who claims for herself the right unceasingly to restrain us from reclaiming our dignity.

We shall overcome!

African National Congress, March, 2002.
download the entire report in MS Word (450 kb)

blakman:
SHOULD YOU RUN OUT TO GET TESTED FOR HIV? YOU’D BETTER READ THIS EXCERPT FIRST!!!

Is the “HIV Test” Valid? The test kit manufacturer’s own literature admits:
“ELISA testing alone cannot be used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens suggests a high probability that the antibody to HIV 1 is present”
– Abbott Laboratories, 1994, 66-2333/R4.
The insert for one of the kits for administering the Western Blot warns: “Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection”
– Epitope/Organon Teknika Corporation, PN201-3039 Revision # 6. (Read more from this document…

Ras_Kwame:
Big Upz Blakman

You’re right. I was admitted to the hospital for 4weeks last year for running stomach, loss of apetite and therefore lost of weight, and a cough. The doctors were buzzled and since I’m originally skinny combined with been Afrikan, the first thing they did was make me take that HIV/AIDS test before anything else. When that was cleared, then TB was suspected. I’m sure if I was in some remote clinic in the Motherland with no HIV/AID testing facilities and I’d come in looking all bony like I did, I would be counted along with the AIDS patients and left to die.

Lets not belief the hype. If you belief the AIDS scare, it probably means that soon Afrikans would be extinct from the face of the earth. Yet we are not the ones paying women to have babies. Our populations isn’t ageing and decreasing still.

blakman:
In many ways, it’s a form of mind control. Think about it! If you are constently told that HIV=AIDS and AIDS=DEATH then your mind set is that I’m going to die anyways so what’s the point of trying to better myself or my community if i’m going to die!!

The funny part is that most people don’t use their common sense anymore and the medical establishment knows this.What you need to understand is that AIDS in Africa and AIDS in America are two different things. What you call AIDS in Africa has more to do with mal-nutrition and bad sanitation problems then anything else!!!!!

In Africa you don’t even have to take the bogus HIV anti-body test to be considered and AIDS patient. Yes, I called the HIV anti-body test bogus because it’s so damn reactive.
When I say reactive,I mean if you have the flu you could come up HIV positive. If you are pregnant,you could and up being HIV positive. Even on the testing kit, it tells you not to used this test has the only factore in determining the exictence of the HIV anti-body. But most people don’t know this, because the media and the damn tel-lie-vision wont let the masses of the people know the truth.

Some of you are asking :”Well, why are africans in Amerikkka HIV infection rates higher then everybody else”. The answer is rather easy to answer! The only reason our rate of infection is higher than anybody else is because they test black people more with the bogus HIV anti-body test then anybody else. It’s really that simple.

What all of this boils down to is, what we call “POPULATION CONTROL”. Its all about making black people be willing participants in their on population control. That is why white people are pushing condoms and programs like planed parenthood on African people. White people aren’t reproducing has they used to and Africans(well the ones on the continent) are blowing them away when it comes to reproducing. It all boils down to 2 things: 1.Mind control and 2.Population control.

They(whites) have been telling us that haitie, Uganda and other African countries would be wiped out by the mid to late 90’s but it never happened. This fact should let us know that all the things they are telling us does not add up, and we as African people need to start doing our on research instead of us relying on whites to tell us everything.

It’s really strange that “SEX” an act that brings life has now been turned around by whites as a cause of death. Strange if you ask me, but then again I’ve come to expect things like this from whites,so it’s no surprise.

On a side note, I think it was some youth from Ivory coast or Sierra Leon(not sure which one) came out with an acronym for AIDS.

A= American
I=  Invention to
D= discourage
S= sex
SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!!!!!!!

Hotep!!

blakman:
Africa isn’t dying of Aids
The headline figures are horrible: almost 30 million Africans have HIV/Aids. But, says Rian Malan, the figures are computer-generated estimates and they appear grotesquely exaggerated when set against population statistics

http://www.spectator.co.uk/

Cape Town

It was the eve of Aids Day here. Rock stars like Bono and Bob Geldof were jetting in for a fundraising concert with Nelson Mandela, and the airwaves were full of dark talk about megadeath and the armies of feral orphans who would surely ransack South Africa’s cities in 2017 unless funds were made available to take care of them. My neighbour came up the garden path with a press cutting. ‘Read this,’ said Capt. David Price, ex-Royal Air Force flyboy. ‘Bloody awful.’

It was an article from The Spectator describing the bizarre sex practices that contribute to HIV’s rampage across the continent. ‘One in five of us here in Zambia is HIV positive,’ said the report. ‘In 1993 our neighbour Botswana had an estimated population of 1.4 million. Today that figure is under a million and heading downwards. Doom merchants predict that Botswana may soon become the first nation in modern times literally to die out. This is Aids in Africa.’

Really? Botswana has just concluded a census that shows population growing at about 2.7 per cent a year, in spite of what is usually described as the worst Aids problem on the planet. Total population has risen to 1.7 million in just a decade. If anything, Botswana is experiencing a minor population explosion.

There is similar bad news for the doomsayers in Tanzania’s new census, which shows population growing at 2.9 per cent a year. Professional pessimists will be particularly discomforted by developments in the swamplands west of Lake Victoria, where HIV first emerged, and where the depopulated villages of popular mythology are supposedly located. Here, in the district of Kagera, population grew at 2.7 per cent a year before 1988, only to accelerate to 3.1 per cent even as the Aids epidemic was supposedly peaking. Uganda’s latest census tells a broadly similar story, as does South Africa’s.

Some might think it good news that the impact of Aids is less devastating than most laymen imagine, but they are wrong. In Africa, the only good news about Aids is bad news, and anyone who tells you otherwise is branded a moral leper, bent on sowing confusion and derailing 100,000 worthy fundraising drives. I know this, because several years ago I acquired what was generally regarded as a leprous obsession with the dumbfounding Aids numbers in my daily papers. They told me that Aids had claimed 250,000 South African lives in 1999, and I kept saying, this can’t possibly be true. What followed was very ugly — ruined dinner parties, broken friendships, ridicule from those who knew better, bitter fights with my wife. After a year or so, she put her foot down. Choose, she said. Aids or me. So I dropped the subject, put my papers in the garage, and kept my mouth shut.

As I write, madam is standing behind me with hands on hips, hugely irked by this reversion to bad habits. But looking around, it seems to me that Aids fever is nearing the danger level, and that some calming thoughts are called for. Bear with me while I explain.

We all know, thanks to Mark Twain, that statistics are often the lowest form of lie, but when it comes to HIV/Aids, we suspend all scepticism. Why? Aids is the most political disease ever. We have been fighting about it since the day it was identified. The key battleground is public perception, and the most deadly weapon is the estimate. When the virus first emerged, I was living in America, where HIV incidence was estimated to be doubling every year or so. Every time I turned on the TV, Madonna popped up to warn me that ‘Aids is an equal-opportunity killer’, poised to break out of the drug and gay subcultures and slaughter heterosexuals. In 1985, a science journal estimated that 1.7 million Americans were already infected, with ‘three to five million’ soon likely to follow suit. Oprah Winfrey told the nation that by 1990 ‘one in five heterosexuals will be dead of Aids’.

We now know that these estimates were vastly and indeed deliberately exaggerated, but they achieved the desired end: Aids was catapulted to the top of the West’s spending agenda, and the estimators turned their attention elsewhere. India’s epidemic was likened to ‘a volcano waiting to explode’. Africa faced ‘a tidal wave of death’. By 1992 they were estimating that ‘Aids could clear the whole planet’.

Who were they, these estimators? For the most part, they worked in Geneva for WHO or UNAIDS, using a computer simulator called Epimodel. Every year, all over Africa, blood would be taken from a small sample of pregnant women and screened for signs of HIV infection. The results would be programmed into Epimodel, which transmuted them into estimates. If so many women were infected, it followed that a similar proportion of their husbands and lovers must be infected, too. These numbers would be extrapolated out into the general population, enabling the computer modellers to arrive at seemingly precise tallies of the doomed, the dying and the orphans left behind.

Because Africa is disorganised and, in some parts, unknowable, we had little choice other than to accept these projections. (‘We’ always expect the worst of Africa anyway.) Reporting on Aids in Africa became a quest for anecdotes to support Geneva’s estimates, and the estimates grew ever more terrible: 9.6 million cumulative Aids deaths by 1997, rising to 17 million three years later.

Or so we were told. When I visited the worst affected parts of Tanzania and Uganda in 2001, I was overwhelmed with stories about the horrors of what locals called ‘Slims’, but statistical corroboration was hard to come by. According to government census bureaux, death rates in these areas had been in decline since the second world war. Aids-era mortality studies yielded some of the lowest overall death rates ever measured. Populations seemed to have exploded even as the epidemic was peaking.

Ask Aids experts about this, and they say, this is Africa, chaos reigns, the historical data is too uncertain to make valid comparisons. But these same experts will tell you that South Africa is vastly different: ‘The only country in sub-Saharan Africa where sufficient deaths are routinely registered to attempt to produce national estimates of mortality,’ says Professor Ian Timaeus of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. According to Timaeus, upwards of 80 per cent of deaths are registered here, which makes us unique: the only corner of Africa where it is possible to judge computer-generated Aids estimates against objective reality.

In the year 2000, Timaeus joined a team of South African researchers bent on eliminating all doubts about the magnitude of Aids’ impact on South African mortality. Sponsored by the Medical Research Council, the team’s mission was to validate (for the first time ever) the output of Aids computer models against actual death registration in an African setting. Towards this end, the MRC team was granted privileged access to death reports as they streamed into Pretoria. The first results became available in 2001, and they ran thus: 339,000 adult deaths in 1998, 375,000 in 1999 and 410,000 in 2000.

This was grimly consistent with predictions of rising mortality, but the scale was problematic. Epimodel estimated 250,000 Aids deaths in 1999, but there were only 375,000 adult deaths in total that year — far too few to accommodate the UN’s claims on behalf of the HIV virus. In short, Epimodel had failed its reality check. It was quietly shelved in favour of a more sophisticated local model, ASSA 600, which yielded a ‘more realistic’ death toll from Aids of 143,000 for the calendar year 1999.

At this level, Aids deaths were about 40 per cent of the total — still a bit high, considering there were only 232,000 deaths left to distribute among all other causes. The MRC team solved the problem by stating that deaths from ordinary disease had declined at the cumulatively massive rate of nearly 3 per cent per annum since 1985. This seemed very odd. How could deaths decrease in the face of new cholera and malaria epidemics, mounting poverty, the widespread emergence of drug-resistant killer microbes, and a state health system reported to be in ‘terminal decline’?

But anyway, these researchers were experts, and their tinkering achieved the desired end: modelled Aids deaths and real deaths were reconciled, the books balanced, truth revealed. The fruit of the MRC’s ground-breaking labour was published in June 2001, and my hash appeared to have been settled. To be sure, I carped about curious adjustments and overall magnitude, but fell silent in the face of graphs showing huge changes in the pattern of death, with more and more people dying at sexually active ages. ‘How can you argue with this?’ cried my wife, eyes flashing angrily. I couldn’t. I put my Aids papers in the garage and ate my hat.

But I couldn’t help sneaking the odd look at science websites to see how the drama was developing. Towards the end of 2001, the vaunted ASSA 600 model was replaced by ASSA 2000, which produced estimates even lower than its predecessor: for the calendar year 1999, only 92,000 Aids deaths in total. This was just more than a third of the original UN figure, but no matter; the boffins claimed ASSA 2000 was so accurate that further reference to actual death reports ‘will be of limited usefulness’. A bit eerie, I thought, being told that virtual reality was about to render the real thing superfluous, but if these experts said the new model was infallible, it surely was infallible.

Only it wasn’t. Last December ASSA 2000 was retired, too. A note on the MRC website explained that modelling was an inexact science, and that ‘the number of people dying of Aids has only now started to increase’. Furthermore, said the MRC, there was a new model in the works, one that would ‘probably’ produce estimates ‘about 10 per cent lower’ than those presently on the table. The exercise was not strictly valid, but I persuaded my scientist pal Rodney Richards to run the revised data on his own simulator and see what he came up with for 1999. The answer, very crudely, was an Aids death toll somewhere around 65,000 — a far cry indeed from the 250,000 initially put forth by UNAIDS.

The wife has just read this, and she is not impressed. ‘It’s obscene,’ she says. ‘You’re treating this as if it’s just a computer game. People are dying out there.’

Well, yes. I concede that. People are dying, but this doesn’t spare us from the fact that Aids in Africa is indeed something of a computer game. When you read that 29.4 million Africans are ‘living with HIV/Aids’, it doesn’t mean that millions of living people have been tested. It means that modellers assume that 29.4 million Africans are linked via enormously complicated mathematical and sexual networks to one of those women who tested HIV positive in those annual pregnancy-clinic surveys. Modellers are the first to admit that this exercise is subject to uncertainties and large margins of error. Larger than expected, in some cases.

A year or so back, modellers produced estimates that portrayed South African universities as crucibles of rampant HIV infection, with one in four undergraduates doomed to die within ten years. Prevalence shifted according to racial composition and region, with Kwazulu-Natal institutions worst affected and Rand Afrikaans University (still 70 per cent white) coming in at 9.5 per cent. Real-life tests on a random sample of 1,188 RAU students rendered a startlingly different conclusion: on-campus prevalence was 1.1 per cent, barely a ninth of the modelled figure. ‘Doubt is cast on present estimates,’ said the RAU report, ‘and further research is strongly advocated.’

A similar anomaly emerged when South Africa’s major banks ran HIV tests on 29,000 staff earlier this year. A modelling exercise put HIV prevalence as high as 12 per cent; real-life tests produced a figure closer to 3 per cent. Elsewhere, actuaries are scratching their heads over a puzzling lack of interest in programs set up by medical-insurance companies to handle an anticipated flood of middle-class HIV cases. Old Mutual, the insurance giant, estimates that as many as 570,000 people are eligible, but only 22,500 have thus far signed up.

In Grahamstown, district surgeon Dr Stuart Dyer is contemplating an equally perplexing dearth of HIV cases in the local jail. ‘Sexually transmitted diseases are common in the prison where I work,’ he wrote to the Lancet, ‘and all prisoners who have any such disease are tested for HIV. Prisoners with any other illnesses that do not resolve rapidly (within one to two weeks) are also tested for HIV. As a result, a large number of HIV tests are done every week. This prison, which holds 550 inmates and is always full or overfull, has an HIV infection rate of 2 to 4 per cent and has had only two deaths from Aids in the seven years I have been working there.’ Dyer goes on to express a dim view of statistics that give the impression that ‘the whole of South Africa will be depopulated within 24 months’, and concludes by stating, ‘HIV infection in SA prisons is currently 2.3 per cent.’ According to the newspapers, it should be closer to 60 per cent.

On the face of it, these developments suggest that miracles are happening in South Africa, unreported by anyone save a brave little magazine called Noseweek. If the anomalies described above are typical, computer models are seriously overstating HIV prevalence. A similar picture emerges on the national level, where our estimated annual Aids death toll has halved since we eased UNAIDS out of the picture, with further reductions likely when the new MRC model appears. Could the same thing be happening in the rest of Africa?

Most estimates for countries north of the Limpopo are issued by UNAIDS, using methods similar to those discredited here in South Africa. According to Paul Bennell, a health- policy analyst associated with Sussex University’s Institute for Development Studies, there is an ‘extraordinary’ lack of evidence from other sources. ‘Most countries do not even collect data on deaths,’ he writes. ‘There is virtually no population-based survey data in most high-prevalence countries.’

Bennell was able, however, to gather information about Africa’s schoolteachers, usually described as a high-risk HIV group on account of their steady income, which enables them to drink and party more than others. Last year the World Bank claimed that Aids was killing Africa’s teachers ‘faster than they can be replaced’. The BBC reported that ‘one in seven’ Malawian teachers would die in 2002 alone.

Bennell looked at the available evidence and found actual teacher mortality to be ‘much lower than expected’. In Malawi, for instance, the all-causes death rate among schoolteachers was under 3 per cent, not over 14 per cent. In Botswana, it was about three times lower than computer-generated estimates. In Zimbabwe, it was four times lower. Bennell believes that Aids continues to present a serious threat to educators, but concludes that ‘overall impact will not be as catastrophic as suggested’. What’s more, teacher deaths appear to be declining in six of the eight countries he has studied closely. ‘This is quite unexpected,’ he remarks, ‘and suggests that, in terms of teacher deaths, the worst may be over.’

In the past year or so, similar mutterings have been heard throughout southern Africa — the epidemic is levelling off or even declining in the worst-affected countries. UNAIDS has been at great pains to rebut such ideas, describing them as ‘dangerous myths’, even though the data on UNAIDS’ own website shows they are nothing of the sort. ‘The epidemic is not growing in most countries,’ insists Bennell. ‘HIV prevalence is not increasing as is usually stated or implied.’

Bennell raises an interesting point here. Why would UNAIDS and its massive alliance of pharmaceutical companies, NGOs, scientists and charities insist that the epidemic is worsening if it isn’t? A possible explanation comes from New York physician Joe Sonnabend, one of the pioneers of Aids research. Sonnabend was working in a New York clap clinic when the syndrome first appeared, and went on to found the American Foundation for Aids Research, only to quit in protest when colleagues started exaggerating the threat of a generalised pandemic with a view to increasing Aids’ visibility and adding urgency to their grant applications. The Aids establishment, says Sonnabend, is extremely skilled at ‘the manipulation of fear for advancement in terms of money and power’.

With such thoughts in the back of my mind, South Africa’s Aids Day ‘celebrations’ cast me into a deeply leprous mood. Please don’t get me wrong here. I believe that Aids is a real problem in Africa. Governments and sober medical professionals should be heeded when they express deep concerns about it. But there are breeds of Aids activist and Aids journalist who sound hysterical to me. On Aids Day, they came forth like loonies drawn by a full moon, chanting that Aids was getting worse and worse, ‘spinning out of control’, crippling economies, causing famines, killing millions, contributing to the oppression of women, and ‘undermining democracy’ by sapping the will of the poor to resist dictators.

To hear them talk, Aids is the only problem in Africa, and the only solution is to continue the agitprop until free access to Aids drugs is defined as a ‘basic human right’ for everyone. They are saying, in effect, that because Mr Mhlangu of rural Zambia has a disease they find more compelling than any other, someone must spend upwards of $400 a year to provide Mr Mhlangu with life-extending Aids medication — a noble idea, on its face, but completely demented when you consider that Mr Mhlangu’s neighbours are likely to be dying in much larger numbers of diseases that could be cured for a few cents if medicines were only available. About 350 million Africans — nearly half the population — get malaria every year, but malaria medication is not a basic human right. Two million get TB, but last time I checked, spending on Aids research exceeded spending on TB by a crushing factor of 90 to one. As for pneumonia, cancer, dysentery or diabetes, let them take aspirin, or grub in the bush for medicinal herbs.

I think it is time to start questioning some of the claims made by the Aids lobby. Their certainties are so fanatical, the powers they claim so far-reaching. Their authority is ultimately derived from computer-generated estimates, which they wield like weapons, overwhelming any resistance with dumbfounding atom bombs of hypothetical human misery. Give them their head, and they will commandeer all resources to fight just one disease. Who knows, they may defeat Aids, but what if we wake up five years hence to discover that the problem has been blown up out of all proportion by unsound estimates, causing upwards of $20 billion to be wasted?

Eja:
Blakman
Honour

Thanks for the posts. They have been most educational. One thing is plain to see : HIV/AIDS and all that comes with it (i.e. the drugs and the propaganda) is a tool of war.

While the arguement that the magnitude of the ‘epidemic’ has been deliberately misconstrued for various reasons is convincing, I still think that for as long as it is accepted that AIDS does in fact exist, then, regardless of the true number of people who were/are infected, we still need to keep pursuing the truth of it’s origin. I say this because I have noticed that along with the scornful manner the views of President Mbeki on AIDS has been treated by the media in the waste, they have also ensured that thier audience will never pay serious attention to what some refer to as ‘the crazy theory’ (that thier scientists deliberately designed this biological weapon).

For all we know, what is unfolding right now is a Plan A–Plan B type scenario (i.e. “if this ‘disease’ does’nt kill them off, then this ‘cure’ will.” – where the ‘cure’ in this case includes the policies being recommended as well as the drugs.

Sis Najuwah:
Blessings,

Whew, lot on my plate can’t eat it all.  I’ll just inhale.

My spirit is on the floor, anger and hatred can’t help but to consume me in this moment.(I’m ok, it’s just for a moment.)  It’ll take me a while to digest this reading…..keep up the good work.  I will continue to pass on this info and hope it sparks curiosity in others.

Tua Ntr
Najuwah

blakman:
‘WE NEED TO QUESTION THE CAUSE OF WHAT IS CALLED AIDS IN AFRICA’

WOZA, 13 July 2000

Winstone Zulu, an HIV-positive, pro-dissident member of President Thabo Mbeki’s AIDS advisory panel, has said that the South African scientific community needs to question what causes AIDS in Africa.

After testing HIV-positive in 1990 and being given only six years to live, Zulu remains alive and well without AIDS treatments 10 years later.

Zulu briefly experimented with anti-retroviral treatments in 1997 in response to a bout of tuberculosis. After experiencing severe side effects, he realised that these drugs did not enhance his quality of life, and he has since chosen to decline treatment.

Mr Zulu now publicly questions the use of expensive and highly toxic anti-HIV drugs to treat a weakened immune system. He also questions the belief that the weakened immune system condition called “AIDS” is caused by a single virus called “HIV”.

Mr Zulu, the first Zambian to publicly announce his HIV-positive status 10 years ago, has risen to international prominence as a PWA activist.

He was the Lead Rapporteur for the Community Track at the final plenary session of the XII World AIDS Conference in Geneva in 1998.  He has been involved in the founding of numerous AIDS service organisations throughout South Africa, and has been invited to speak at many international conferences.

He is the only member of President Thabo Mbeki’s AIDS advisory panel who is not a doctor or an academic.

Zulu said, “In looking at my passport, I realise that over the past nine years, I have traveled to 23 countries, doing AIDS-related work. Sometimes I ask myself, in all this time, and in all these conferences, what have we achieved?”

As a member of Mbeki’s AIDS panel, Zulu has been encouraged by others to do “what is best for Africa”. This, he says, involves a fundamental questioning of the accepted causes of AIDS in Africa.

blakman:
CONTEMPT FOR THE MASSES HOPES RISE FOR INEXPENSIVE AIDS DRUG

Researchers in Los Angeles and Washington have identified what may be the first inexpensive AIDS drug, a finding that could have major importance for the 50% of HIV-positive Americans not receiving treatment because of its cost.  ¶ They also say that the drug, in conjunction with two other AIDS drugs, has induced what may be a permanent remission in three HIV-positive patients who have now gone for more than a year without treatment.  ¶  Although experts are skeptical about the remission claims, many are impressed by reported successes with the drug, called hydroxyurea, and have begun incorporating it into their own treatment regiments.  The drug is unique in that it affects host cells in the patient rather than the virus. ¶…Because it has been around so long, no company has exclusive rights to hydroxyurea.  As a result, money for clinical trials has come from private donors. Los Angeles Times, February 1998

HYDROXYUREA:
Using a glossary of chemistry, we can break down this word “hydroxyurea” and get it’s more common designation: •Hydrogen •Oxygen •Urea Hydrogen + Oxygen = Water (H2O) Urea is from Ureic Acid (root word of urine) Hydroxyurea is commonly referred to as: piss (tinkle, pee-pee, No. 1, etc.).  This is being touted as an AIDS drug for poor people!

blakman:
THEIR FORECASTS WERE WRONG!

Theresa Crenshaw, President’s AIDS Commission, 1987: “If the spread of AIDS continues at the same rate, in 1996 there could be one billion people infected; five years later, hypothetically ten billion; however, the population of the world is only five billion.  Could we be facing the threat of extinction during our lifetime?  Even before our children are grown?”

To set the record straight, in November 1996 the WHO reported a cumulative total of 1,544,067 AIDS cases worldwide.  Compared with UN statistics, AIDS Commissioner Crenshaw’s forecast was off by a factor of 647 times higher than actual reported figures—the hypothesis upon which her prediction was founded was fundamentally flawed.  Her model was based upon the belief that HIV was an infectious agent which was being spread through sex; a true STD.  Yet, as all evidence confirms, HIV has never demonstrated the etiology of an STD.

blakman:
VIEW A SERIES OF AIDS DOCUMENTARIES THAT HAVE BEEN BANNED IN THE USA!  😮 Here are a series of streaming videos and audio tracks, most of which have never been aired on US media that you simply must witness.  [smiley=beam.gif]

http://7mac.com/7MAC/RealMedia/BBC_AIDS_tests.ram
http://7mac.com/7MAC/RealMedia/AIDS_Concern.ram
http://7mac.com/7MAC/RealMedia/Meditel_Africa.ram
http://7mac.com/7MAC/RealMedia/AIDS_Catch.ram

This article has been retracted.Retraction in: Front Public Health. 2019 October 29; 7: 334    See also: PMC Retraction Policy

Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent