Email President Bush and confront him about his stand for homosexuals

Agape press ^ | 1/26/03 | Tony Horton

[TonyTheTigger]

To: president@whitehouse.gov; vice.president@whitehouse.gov Subject: Email President Bush and confront him about his stand for homosexuals

Dear Mr. President this is what the web page seen by millions will say. I also have a rather large size mailing list I will send this out to.

Email President Bush and confront him about his stand for homosexuals

To: president@whitehouse.gov, vice.president@whitehouse.gov

You will not receive my vote and I will make web pages after web pages exposing you for the fence straddling liar you have become. Ignore this if you want.... I will make good on what I promised you.

If this story is false I will not do what I have said. If I get no response I will take it to mean your guilty.

Bush White House, Clinton White House ... No Difference on Homosexuality

News from Agape Press

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/242003b.asp

A former voter for you,

Tony Horton

[Clint N. Suhks]

In ADDITION TO wars something is killing people big time if life expectancy has dropped from 65 to 30.

I remain convinced it’s TB, “Of the 661 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, 2-3 million have active TB with an annual mortality of 790,000.”

[xzins]

It's something more. TB's been there for forever. Why now and not before? Something's been added. But please don't press me for what it is.

[George W. Bush]

I’ll settle for the new OraQuick test for HIV that Tommy Thomson says is 99% accurate. It’s quick, inexpensive and needs no refrigeration, specialized tools, or traditional laboratory and clinical settings. The test does not detect virus. Instead, it detects antibodies that the immune system dispatches to fight HIV and doesn’t react to the antibodies related to TB. I suspect we’ll be seeing, when the smoke and propaganda clears, is that Africa is raging from a tuberculosis epidemic so large and out of control that it accounts for the mass death predicted.

No AIDS test detects HIV. They all detect antibodies. There's no great reason to believe it's more accurate or reliable than many others which you can order via the Web.

From the CDC web page on OraQuick: "For those individuals with reactive test results, follow-up testing using another technique is necessary to confirm that the result is positive for HIV antibodies."

So, Tommy Thompson or no Tommy Thompson, it's the same old thing. And Tommy Boy is the one who put the big-time sodomite from his state in as AIDS Czar. I fail to be impressed.

How about this:

• Q: Are blood donors allowed to be screened using the OraQuick test?
• A: No. This test is intended to be used as an aid in the diagnosis of HIV infection. The manufacturer has not submitted data to support a blood donor screening claim.

Now, would you say they have any significant level of confidence in their product? Doesn't sound like they'd risk their life on it, does it? If they know the kit isn't safe enough to use for blood donors, then why should you trust its results? Why should we cheer if this kit and others like it are sent to Africa and used as the basis to diagnose AIDS and prescribe lethal drugs to Africans.

Are you aware of the patients who died supposedly of AIDS and who always tested negative? And how about the people who are HIV-positive but never took any drugs and remain healthy over 15 years later? So much for the reliability of these tests.

What I don’t understand is why “in the West, AIDS consists of a person's having one or more of approximately 27 relatively rare diseases.

Well, it's at 29 or 30 now. The last one added was some kind of cervical cancer so that they can rope in more women. Can't have a sodomite/intravenous-only disease, can we? Too many people might raise pesky questions about what happened to the vast heterosexual AIDS epidemic that was supposed to have killed us all about 5 years ago.

I suspect we’ll be seeing, when the smoke and propaganda clears, is that Africa is raging from a tuberculosis epidemic so large and out of control that it accounts for the mass death predicted.

I agree. Drug-resistant malaria and TB, parasitic infections that many Africans live with their entire lives due to tropical climate and poor sanitation. These problems are well-known and demonstrable.

Why does the WHO have a different methodology than the West, it just doesn’t make sense?

Good points. As for the variety in diagnosis using the supposedly most accurate and expensive Western blot test, read this:

In response to this, testing authorities have developed strategies such as repeat testing of all positive ELISAs and following up those twice positive with a third but different antibody test known as the Western Blot. In the Western Blot, the "HIV proteins," about ten of them, are located at discrete spots in a paper strip rather like the one your doctor uses to perform multiple tests on your urine. Serum is added and wherever there is a reaction a colour change occurs which shows up as a dark band. The test is read by noting which bands show up, in other words, which proteins react. Certain combinations of bands are defined as a positive test.

It is enigmatic that the location and number of bands required for a positive Western Blot varies around the world. They may even vary between laboratories within the same city. In Australia, four bands are required. In Canada and much of the United States, three bands suffice, while in Africa, two will do. In the US Multicenter AIDS Cohort prospective study involving several thousand gay men, just one "strong band" was deemed sufficient to earn a positive result.

If each of the above criteria indicates HIV infection, then HIV must cause different populations of antibodies to appear in different places. I don't know about you, but to me that sounds very odd. At the least it gives some Africans a way out. All an African has to do is have a test in Australia because two bands would not be considered positive here. Nevertheless, in spite of lack of standardization and other problems such as reproducibility, the Western Blot is accepted to be in excess of 99.9% specific and if positive is regarded as synonymous with HIV infection. In some countries, similar claims are now made for the HIV ELISA without "confirmation" by Western Blot.

Hmmm... so the Western blot isn't used consistently even in the West. Even within the same city. Look at it again: Africa, when the test is done at all, is 2 bands but it takes 4 bands here. Except when they decide to count just one strong band instead. On the face of their own testing methods, we have a maximum of 50% of the certainty in African tests that we (generally) do in America. And very few in Africa ever get Western blot. Too few to establish a real statistical picture even get a single inaccurate ELISA. And the AIDS self-test kits are even less reliable than the ELISA. Mostly, in Africa it's just the usual list of 27-30 symptoms which happen to be characteristic of endemic diseases in tropical Africa for many decades (TB, malaria, etc.).

And how about the false positives? Around 70 conditions or diseases can cause false positives. Have a look at this list (with matching scientific studies) to see whether you think you or a family member might test positive based on the conditions listed.

For instance, I'm approaching my third immunization shot for Hepatitis B. But if I didn't know about this list and they did a test on me, I could easily get a false positive test for HIV. And before you knew, they'd have scared me into a whole battery of AZT and cocktail drugs. All of them highly toxic.

Further, I heard today that AIDS activists are complaining that the US is going to act unilaterally concerning GWB’s African AIDS initiative and NOT going to work with the WHO. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d say the WHO is getting nervous because the truth is going to be found, rats always scurry when the lights are turned on.

The AIDS activists, the AIDS journalists, the researchers, the WHO, the whole bunch are essentially front organizations for the pharmaceutical companies. Each of them has their own little niche of self-interest and compete within that sphere for economic and social rewards. It's an industry, not a religious calling. Unlike real scientists, they have a chilling uniformity that excludes any inquiry outside the one approved by the drug companies, namely, that which leads to the prescription of very expensive and therefore very profitable AIDS drugs.

Clint, the only people I've known with AIDS seemed to be killed by the drugs. A lot of others will tell you the exact same thing. They're incredibly toxic. Young healthy people drop over with heart attacks and strokes routinely. The only people I know who died of AIDS just happened to be on those drugs. I think it was the drugs. I think the drugs killed them. Personally, Clint, I would advise you to avoid AIDS testing of any kind. I only did took the test once and I won't do it again.

[George W. Bush]

I wonder when the patents run out on these aids cocktails.

Well, AZT was discovered in the Sixties. But I think it's still under patent. There's been a lot of monkeying around with patent and copyright law in recent years, the appearance of patent and copyright mills (intellectual property companies).

I have to admit, I don't have the patience to dig through the federal patents database to find the info.

Even if the patents run out, yuo should expect they'll have a "new and improved" version appear to carry forware the brand-name. I've seen that with expensive medicines for animals like Ivomec. Funny how they manage to improve just in time to get a new patent.

[George W. Bush]

It's something more. TB's been there for forever.

No. Not TB or malaria that resist every drug we have. We haven't seen that in many decades. It should be no surprise this has happened in Africa. There are drug-resistant strains of TB and gonorrhea here in the U.S. too. I think syphilis too. The medical people seem to blame patients who don't complete their prescribed drug regimen and that allows the disease to become resistant. Usually, they blame drug addicts and the homeless.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The only people I know who died of aids just happened to be on those drugs.

But what about all those who died before the drugs came online?

You dismiss too much, too quickly.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Since the drug companies haven't yet gotten to Africa to reap their riches, what is the rationale for the WHO's and the UN's and everyone else's "misdiagnosis" of the deaths in Africa as due to AIDS? What's the point?

You question the number of deaths and you question the cause of such deaths.

What if the diagnosis is correct as well as the numbers? Who do you think would gain from these lies and fabrications as to the make-up and magnitude of AIDS?

Because I don't see anyone standing behind that tree.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

single postive

That's interesting. I think these tests are far more sophisticated than we know, and rarely incorrect.

And GWB, FWIW, TB is part of the aids package; not surprising those who are diagnosed with aids also have TB, along with numerous other immune illnesses. Whatever aids is, it's a broad-spectrum invasion.

[George W. Bush]

But what about all those who died before the drugs came online?

No. I relate what I know personally. After all, this thread has a lot of text which is just based on reading material. I saw what happened to the health of these guys personally and the end result. It's a little different than some dry reading of web pages or books on the matter.

What I know of the early AIDS epidemic was Kaposi's sarcoma and pneumocystis pneumonia. But that doesn't tell us that HIV causes them. I do still tend to credit Duesberg's views that evidence has never been established for a connection to HIV. There is a disease or a set of diseases. But no proof that they are AIDS or that the toxic drugs are particularly effective or that they were caused by different strains of HIV virus.

You seem to accept all the standard explanations offered by the AIDS establishment. Can you explain why 20% of us aren't dead yet of the dreaded heterosexual AIDS epidemic they all promised us was coming? I'm sure you don't believe there has been any great increase in sexual morality in this country. How exactly do you explain it? How do you explain that the death rate dropped dramaticly several years before the AIDS cocktails became available? How do you explain the people living 15 years or longer with HIV in good health (if they avoided the drugs)?

It doesn't add up. It never did. Panic and drug profits did all this, not real science.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yes, it doesn't add up, but a lot of the miscalculation is in the plucking of the concept of "prions" out of thin air and creating pretend science around it.

[George W. Bush]

Since the drug companies haven't yet gotten to Africa to reap their riches, what is the rationale for the WHO's and the UN's and everyone else's "misdiagnosis" of the deaths in Africa as due to AIDS? What's the point?

• For AIDS activists: to promote the notion that it is a broad threat, not merely associated with sodomites and intravenous drug users. And to make sure that when evidence is obvious lacking for a huge heterosexual epidemic, that no one can say so publicly
• For AIDS journalists: to serve their own career interests as usual. Serving their preferred political party is just a bonus.
• For WHO: to make itself more important since everyone would otherwise ignore everything it says.
• For researchers: to keep the money rolling and to have a place in research since to buck the AIDS establishment is career suicide. And their AIDS conferences are the only time anyone does report anything they say
• For test-making companies: money
• For drug-making companies: vast amounts of money and, since the U.S. market is drying up, to get the government to continue to fund their ridiculously overpriced toxic medicines in the African market
• For Democrats: to call Republicans homophobic if they won't succumb to welfare and free drugs for the sodomite constituency

That'll do for a start.

[xzins]

My understanding (correct me if wrong) is that syp/gonh are bacterial and subject to antibiotics but that TB is viral and therefore not subject.

I thought they'd never cured TB just found ways to treat it and have it go into dormancy.

[George W. Bush]

Yes, it doesn't add up, but a lot of the miscalculation is in the plucking of the concept of "prions" out of thin air and creating pretend science around it.

Well, if you don't want to discuss AIDS, just say so.

[xzins]

The reason for misdiagnosis is to spread the myth of heterosexual spread of aids. It is part of the gay agenda; a critical issue given the belief that aids is a "gay plague."

That's the explanation that I've heard for the misdiagnosis. I haven't discounted it yet.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

But the deaths from aids in Africa began before the gays died in the U.S. That's the telling factor.

This was always some new, strange, blood-based disease (crossing the blood-brain barrier for the first time) that only secondarily became a "gay" disease.

Some say this cover was set up to allow the disease to spread, since giving it the veneer of gayness would activate the liberal establishment to protect those with it from scrutiny and identification.

Remember at the start of this disease in the '80's, nurses were forbidden to wear gowns and gloves around aids patients for fear of hurting their feelings. All that did was spread it more.

Now that the disease is firmly entrenched throughout the third world, we can try to better eradicate it in the U.S.

I don't know if any of this is true. But it is worth considering.

[George W. Bush]

That's interesting. I think these tests are far more sophisticated than we know, and rarely incorrect.

How so? Tests so effective that you have to have two ELISA's and a Western blot in most places in America to establish the presence of AIDS antibodies? This is what you call 'rarely incorrect'? If they were 'rarely incorrect', one test would be sufficient, at the most, two tests. Not 3-6 with still many false indications from about 70 different non-AIDS illnesses or conditions. Nor should there be cases of people who were claimed to have died of AIDS who never tested positive at all.

And GWB, FWIW, TB is part of the aids package; not surprising those who are diagnosed with aids also have TB, along with numerous other immune illnesses. Whatever aids is, it's a broad-spectrum invasion.

No, it's not a "part of the aids package". At least, not according to the CDC:

The Deadly Intersection Between TB and HIV

Tuberculosis (TB) is a disease that is spread from person-to-person through the air, and it is particularly dangerous for people infected with HIV. Worldwide, TB is the leading cause of death among people infected with HIV.

An estimated 10-15 million Americans are infected with TB bacteria, with the potential to develop active TB disease in the future. About 10 percent of these infected individuals will develop TB at some point in their lives. However, the risk of developing TB disease is much greater for those infected with HIV and living with AIDS. Because HIV infection so severely weakens the immune system, people dually infected with HIV and TB have a 100 times greater risk of developing active TB disease and becoming infectious compared to people not infected with HIV. CDC estimates that 10 to 15 percent of all TB cases and nearly 30 percent of cases among people ages 25 to 44 are occurring in HIV-infected individuals.

This high level of risk underscores the critical need for targeted TB screening and preventive treatment programs for HIV-infected people and those at greatest risk for HIV infection. All people infected with HIV should be tested for TB, and, if infected, complete preventive therapy as soon as possible to prevent TB disease.

---

Intersection of Two Global Epidemics

---

• Approximately 2 billion people (one-third of the world's population) are infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the cause of TB.
• TB is the cause of death for one out of every three people with AIDS worldwide.
• The spread of the HIV epidemic has significantly impacted the TB epidemic - one-third of the increase in TB cases over the last five years can be attributed to the HIV epidemic (Source: UNAIDS).

---

The Continued Threat of Multidrug-Resistant TB

---

Every nation must face the challenge of combating multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB. People infected with HIV and living with AIDS are at greater risk for developing MDR TB. MDR TB is extremely difficult to treat and can be fatal. While the number of cases has remained stable in the United States over the past few years, people with MDR TB have now been reported from 43 states and the District of Columbia.

To prevent the continued emergence of drug-resistant strains of TB, treatment for TB must be improved in the United States and across the globe. Inconsistent or partial treatment is the main cause of TB that is resistant to available drugs (MDR-TB.) The most effective strategy for ensuring completion of treatment is Directly Observed Therapy, and its use must be expanded.

Another challenge that individuals co-infected with HIV and TB face is the possible complications that can occur when taking HIV treatment regimens along with drugs commonly used to treat TB. Physicians prescribing these drugs must carefully consider all potential interactions.

Addressing the Dangers of the Interconnected TB/HIV Epidemics Requires Expanded Efforts

TB control is an exercise in vigilance; the goal of controlling and eventually eliminating TB requires a targeted and continuous effort to address the prevention and treatment needs for those most at risk, including HIV-infected individuals. Efforts to eliminate TB are therefore essential to reducing the global toll of HIV.
TB: airborne
AIDS: blood-transmission

TB is TB. AIDS is AIDS. If you don't like it, go convince the CDC.

The same is true for Hep C/AIDS convergence. But Hep C is not "part of the aids package" either.

[George W. Bush]

I don't know if any of this is true. But it is worth considering.

Well, I'm willing to consider it. But if you reject what I've been writing as unlikely and unscientific, you've gone even further than I did and on sketchier evidence. At least, you haven't yet presented fuller information to support the idea so that we can consider it more fully in light of all the facts that we do have.

But, if I looked far enough in the AIDS heresy organizations, I could probably find others who think the same as what you suggested. I would say that I think I can muster more evidence, both direct and indirect, for my particular AIDS heresy.

I'm not pretending I'm some boy genius on the high ground of truth. I just think the conventional explanation explains far too little and tries to explain away too many inconvenient facts. And the convergence of politics (conventional and sexual) and big drug money hasn't helped anything. One can hardly look at the evidence and the research and conclude that it is anything comparable to the sciences of chemistry or physics. There are too many contradictory results, too much evidence that doesn't fit, too many predictions that fail to materialize. Something is seriously wrong with the conventional explanations of AIDS.

To me, that means we need to look again at the whole issue before we put even more people on dangerously toxic drugs. Or possibly squander AIDS drugs on Africa when what they need is sexual abstinence, sanitation, better public health, and new drugs to combat the now-resistant traditional diseases that have always plagued the tropical countries.

[Slip18]

I read the whole article, and I am shocked, to say the least.

I'm going to have to print it out for a better perusal. I'll also have to check on Rian Malan's expertise.

This should be a must read.

[Slip18]

The link provided is an important read.

[Travis McGee]

Thanks!