Posted on 05/01/2005 10:00:15 AM PDT by TapTheSource
Cumulative 'AIDS' figures in Canada
What is interesting is that there have only been 65 teenage cases since 1983 in Canada. Also the 20 to 25 age group is very low too.
This is similar to the U.S. and does not fit an std.
Like America, people over 60 have as much 'AIDS'
(611 cases) as both teenagers AND 20-24 years olds combined (65 teen cases and 573 cases in the 20-24 group).
Seems once again Grannies are Gone Wild!
http://www.avert.org/canstatr.htm
Thank you. I think I've got the picture.
THE REAL CAUSE OF 'AIDS' IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT HAS BEEN FOR CENTURIES.
IMMUNE SUPPRESSION IS CAUSED BY POVERTY, TOXINS AND DRUGS, STRESS AND THOUSANDS OF SIMILAR CAUSES.
This is why 'AIDS' is a 'disease' of the poor.
To lump together 29 old killer diseases, that have existed for centuries, and say they are now suddenly caused by a wonder virus (that refuses to be isolated) is madness.
'AIDS' is also AID$ - A multi billion dollar industry
I would like to know how Duesberg accounts for the documented toll of HIV deaths among hemophiliacs in the 80's who receieved tainted blood transfusions and engaged in no high risk behaviors at all.
Of course they didn't. From their point of view, it would be grossly unethical. Nothing has stopped Duesberg from this experiment, like the guy who has been eating DDT for the last 30 years. He can do it and put out press releases of his own if he believes what he says.
Your post has convinced me that Duesberg is indeed a charlatan who is unwilling to put his health where his mouth is. Thanks for exposing the Duesberg fraud so clearly and unambiguously.
I did a quick search
of his site. He speaks about
some of that in this:
"...Further evidence that AIDS is controlled by more than just HIV comes from studies of the development of disease following active HIV infection. The average time from infection to overt AIDS (based on studies of gay men and intravenous drug abusers) is 10 years. If HIV alone controlled AIDS, then about half of the people infected with HIV in 1983 should have developed AIDS by now, regardless of their mode of exposure. Yet this is not true of hemophiliacs.
"It is estimated that 90%, or some 15,000, of the hemophiliacs in the U. S. were infected with HIV between 1981 and 1984. One would expect at least half of these hemophiliacs to have developed AIDS by now. But only 1,500 cases of AIDS have been recorded among hemophiliacs during the entire epidemic. Moreover, hemophiliacs under the age of 20 and those with less severe manifestations of hemophilia progress to AIDS at a fifth the rate of older and more severe hemophiliacs. If anything proves that HIV alone does not control the development of AIDS, this is it.
"An even more striking fact is that, like female prostitutes, hemophiliacs have not become vectors for spreading AIDS into the heterosexual population. So-called secondary cases of AIDS, in which a person not in a primary risk group acquires AIDS from someone in such a group, constitute only 3% of all AIDS cases ever reported in the U. S. Cases of AIDS transmitted by hemophiliacs total only 104 (as of January 1992), and most of the affected individuals have documented assaults on their immune systems beyond HIV exposure.
"Tertiary cases of AIDS are completely unknown. No documented case of AIDS exists anywhere in the Western world of a drug-free heterosexual who contracted AIDS from a primary carrier (for example, a hemophiliac) and then transmitted the disease to a healthy, drug-free third party. Again, this phenomenon is unparalleled in any previous epidemic.
"The prostitute and hemophiliac data argue strongly for the conclusion that healthy, drug-free people do not get AIDS. The people who do get both HIV and AIDS have many additional immunosuppressive factors at work on them that predispose them to disease."
bttt
"Duesberg has been bunked, debunked and punk'd more times than John Kerry. Why are you hyping this lunatic's junk science 10-20 years on...Geesh."
Sure, except that none of the supposed "debunkings" actually do. He is one of the top retrovirus researchers and viral geneticists in the world. He and one of his grad students invented PCR for example.
Oh, and this isn't by Duesberg, it's by Bryan Ellison.
That may be the case. But it is my understanding that a causal relationship between HIV and AIDS has never been properly established either.
"I would like to know how Duesberg accounts for the documented toll of HIV deaths among hemophiliacs in the 80's who receieved tainted blood transfusions and engaged in no high risk behaviors at all"
THE ANSWER
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdhemogen.htm
Actually mortalities DROPPED 67% among hemophiliacs between 1985 and 1995 dispite 90% being said to be 'HIV positive'.
In short the condition causes a false antibody protein reaction to the Elsa and WB tests.
That simple.
"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.
"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."
Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München.
"Duesberg and Ellison offered to inject themselves with purified HIV if the NIH/CDC would agree to publicize the event and regularly report on their prognosis. To date, they have not taken them up on this offer."
...and if he were to inject himself without NIH supervision, he'd lose the ability to legally work with the stuff he works with, he'd have his licenses taken away.
wideminded, would you please try to be? ;)
Hidden Facts and Dangers of HIV Tests
What's in the Fine Print
Remarkable information about HIV tests including the fact that no HIV test has ever been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the actual diagnosing of HIV infection.
Few doctors, clinics, journalists, or AIDS organizations know that all current HIV tests are approved only as screening tests, prognostic tests (for predicting a possible future outcome) or as "an aid in diagnosis" and are not intended to be used for determining if a person actually has HIV.
The FDA's lack of such approval speaks to the fact that no HIV test can directly detect or quantify HIV or determine the presence of specific HIV antibodies in human blood.
Recent changes in the fine print of the test kits acknowledge this little known data and seem to indicate a change of thought with regard to the role of HIV in AIDS.
From 1984 until last year, test literature contained the very certain statement that "AIDS is CAUSED by HIV." Then in November of 2002, a new test kit started what now seems to be a trend toward rethinking the causal link between HIV and AIDS. It states, "AIDS, AIDS related complex and pre-AIDS are THOUGHT TO BE CAUSED by HIV." (OraQuick Rapid HIV-1 Antibody Test, OraSure Technologies, Inc)
Now it appears we've gone from "HIV is thought to cause AIDS," to something even more uncertain: "Published data indicate A STRONG CORRELATION between the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and a retrovirus REFERRED TO as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)."
This last quote is found in the package insert for a new ELISA test (Vironostika HIV-1 Plus O Microelisa System) the FDA approved in June 2003.
The entire package insert can be downloaded from
http://www.fda.gov/cber/pma/P020066.htm
According to Alive & Well advisor Dr Rodney Richards, a chemist and co-creator of the very first HIV test, as of June 2003, the number of FDA approved tests that contain the term HIV or LAV (the old school term for the so-called virus) have risen to 36. Of these, 13 have been approved in just the last three years.
Richards points out that "despite the increased number of HIV tests, there is still no manufacturer that claims their test can be used to diagnose infection with HIV. All of the RNA based tests for viral load and genotyping clearly state they are 'NOT intended for use in diagnosing HIV infection.'
Instead of an indication for use in detecting or quantifying the actual virus, these tests are approved only for prognosis or monitoring therapy for people who doctors assume are infected.?
Richards is working on a document to clarify what HIV test manufacturers mean by the terms "prognosis," "monitoring of therapy," and "aid in the diagnosis of HIV." His report will focus on what the tests cannot do (diagnose HIV infection) and what exactly they can.
At first glance, the rapid tests may appear relatively benign since the manufacturers clearly emphasize that "preliminary positives" must be confirmed with follow up testing.
This emphasis is due to the fact that the accuracy of the rapid tests? is widely known to be more questionable than the already dubious HIV ELISA or Western Blot. But the notion that medical personnel will await confirmation of results before insisting patients take action is entirely misguided since the true market for rapid tests is pregnant women in labor
Incredibly, the recommendation to misuse rapid tests for women in labor comes directly from the Deputy Commissioner of the FDA himself, Dr. Lester M Crawford.
The good doctor says "OraQuick will be a great help in identifying pregnant HIV-infected women going into labor who were not tested during pregnancy so that precautionary steps can be taken to block their newborns from being infected with HIV." (FDA News, November 7, 2002)
These precautionary steps include IV infusion of the toxic chemotherapy AZT during labor, C-section delivery, six weeks of mandatory AZT treatment for the baby regardless of their own HIV status, and orders to the mother not to breastfeed.
Even though chemotherapy, surgery and denial of normal feeding are based on preliminary results from a test never approved for detecting HIV infection, a mother who declines such intervention risks losing custody of her child.
Perhaps more remarkable than official calls for misuse of rapid tests is a disclosure by the manufacturer of the OraQuick that 7% of women with a history of prior pregnancy will score falsely positive on their test.
Further, the manufacturer of the newly approved Reveal test didn't even evaluate their product in multiparous women.
Worse still, as Dr Richards points out, the rapid tests may soon be routinely administered to women tested negative before labor. "Based on the erroneous belief these tests can actually diagnose HIV infection, doctors may want to retest women in labor who?ve previously come up negative just to be sure they haven't seroconverted in the mean time."
Another lucrative market for the rapid tests is among healthcare workers who experience accidental needle sticks or other unintentional contact with patient fluids. As Richard points out, this opens a Pandora?s box of potential life-altering situations.
"Imagine a nurse sticks herself with a used needle. Ora-Sure gives her the impression she can find out quickly if that needle is contaminated with HIV. Should the needle score positive, she would then be urged to start prophylactic chemotherapy right away.
Of course, if the needle scores positive, hospitals would most likely feel an ethical responsibility to
inform the patient and to urge them to also start 'saving their lives' with AIDS meds. Since there are 600,000 to 1,000,000 accidental needles sticks in the US annually, this is a huge market for both the test and treatment manufacturers."
The great influence of drug and test manufacturers on public health policy, media presentations and among AIDS activist groups may mean that the hidden dangers of rapid tests will remain unknown.
Hidden Facts and Dangers of HIV Tests
What's in the Fine Print
Remarkable information about HIV tests including the fact that no HIV test has ever been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the actual diagnosing of HIV infection.
Few doctors, clinics, journalists, or AIDS organizations know that all current HIV tests are approved only as screening tests, prognostic tests (for predicting a possible future outcome) or as "an aid in diagnosis" and are not intended to be used for determining if a person actually has HIV.
The FDA's lack of such approval speaks to the fact that no HIV test can directly detect or quantify HIV or determine the presence of specific HIV antibodies in human blood.
Recent changes in the fine print of the test kits acknowledge this little known data and seem to indicate a change of thought with regard to the role of HIV in AIDS.
From 1984 until last year, test literature contained the very certain statement that "AIDS is CAUSED by HIV." Then in November of 2002, a new test kit started what now seems to be a trend toward rethinking the causal link between HIV and AIDS. It states, "AIDS, AIDS related complex and pre-AIDS are THOUGHT TO BE CAUSED by HIV." (OraQuick Rapid HIV-1 Antibody Test, OraSure Technologies, Inc)
Now it appears we've gone from "HIV is thought to cause AIDS," to something even more uncertain: "Published data indicate A STRONG CORRELATION between the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and a retrovirus REFERRED TO as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)."
This last quote is found in the package insert for a new ELISA test (Vironostika HIV-1 Plus O Microelisa System) the FDA approved in June 2003.
The entire package insert can be downloaded from
http://www.fda.gov/cber/pma/P020066.htm
According to Alive & Well advisor Dr Rodney Richards, a chemist and co-creator of the very first HIV test, as of June 2003, the number of FDA approved tests that contain the term HIV or LAV (the old school term for the so-called virus) have risen to 36. Of these, 13 have been approved in just the last three years.
Richards points out that "despite the increased number of HIV tests, there is still no manufacturer that claims their test can be used to diagnose infection with HIV. All of the RNA based tests for viral load and genotyping clearly state they are 'NOT intended for use in diagnosing HIV infection.'
Instead of an indication for use in detecting or quantifying the actual virus, these tests are approved only for prognosis or monitoring therapy for people who doctors assume are infected.?
Richards is working on a document to clarify what HIV test manufacturers mean by the terms "prognosis," "monitoring of therapy," and "aid in the diagnosis of HIV." His report will focus on what the tests cannot do (diagnose HIV infection) and what exactly they can.
At first glance, the rapid tests may appear relatively benign since the manufacturers clearly emphasize that "preliminary positives" must be confirmed with follow up testing.
This emphasis is due to the fact that the accuracy of the rapid tests? is widely known to be more questionable than the already dubious HIV ELISA or Western Blot. But the notion that medical personnel will await confirmation of results before insisting patients take action is entirely misguided since the true market for rapid tests is pregnant women in labor
Incredibly, the recommendation to misuse rapid tests for women in labor comes directly from the Deputy Commissioner of the FDA himself, Dr. Lester M Crawford.
The good doctor says "OraQuick will be a great help in identifying pregnant HIV-infected women going into labor who were not tested during pregnancy so that precautionary steps can be taken to block their newborns from being infected with HIV." (FDA News, November 7, 2002)
These precautionary steps include IV infusion of the toxic chemotherapy AZT during labor, C-section delivery, six weeks of mandatory AZT treatment for the baby regardless of their own HIV status, and orders to the mother not to breastfeed.
Even though chemotherapy, surgery and denial of normal feeding are based on preliminary results from a test never approved for detecting HIV infection, a mother who declines such intervention risks losing custody of her child.
Perhaps more remarkable than official calls for misuse of rapid tests is a disclosure by the manufacturer of the OraQuick that 7% of women with a history of prior pregnancy will score falsely positive on their test.
Further, the manufacturer of the newly approved Reveal test didn't even evaluate their product in multiparous women.
Worse still, as Dr Richards points out, the rapid tests may soon be routinely administered to women tested negative before labor. "Based on the erroneous belief these tests can actually diagnose HIV infection, doctors may want to retest women in labor who?ve previously come up negative just to be sure they haven't seroconverted in the mean time."
Another lucrative market for the rapid tests is among healthcare workers who experience accidental needle sticks or other unintentional contact with patient fluids. As Richard points out, this opens a Pandora?s box of potential life-altering situations.
"Imagine a nurse sticks herself with a used needle. Ora-Sure gives her the impression she can find out quickly if that needle is contaminated with HIV. Should the needle score positive, she would then be urged to start prophylactic chemotherapy right away.
Of course, if the needle scores positive, hospitals would most likely feel an ethical responsibility to
inform the patient and to urge them to also start 'saving their lives' with AIDS meds. Since there are 600,000 to 1,000,000 accidental needles sticks in the US annually, this is a huge market for both the test and treatment manufacturers."
The great influence of drug and test manufacturers on public health policy, media presentations and among AIDS activist groups may mean that the hidden dangers of rapid tests will remain unknown.
"I would like to know how Duesberg accounts for the documented toll of HIV deaths among hemophiliacs in the 80's who receieved tainted blood transfusions and engaged in no high risk behaviors at all."
Point to ONE person killed by "HIV?"
There is always another cause of death. HIV + whatever. it's really the other disease that kills. HIV isn't needed at all.
"Of course they didn't. From their point of view, it would be grossly unethical. Nothing has stopped Duesberg from this experiment, like the guy who has been eating DDT for the last 30 years. He can do it and put out press releases of his own if he believes what he says. Your post has convinced me that Duesberg is indeed a charlatan who is unwilling to put his health where his mouth is. Thanks for exposing the Duesberg fraud so clearly and unambiguously."
He'd lose his license to work with the infectious diseases he works with. He could inject himself, he'd live, but end his career.
You've only demonstrated something other than what you thought - that you aren't enough informed about the issue to have a valid opinion on it. Have a nice day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.