Devastating AIDS Toll Predicted

Tuesday, July 2, 2002

...unless rich nations step up their efforts to curb the disease...

insinuating that America is at fault for poor countries' sexual behaviors.

Typical, left-wing, guilt-ridden tripe.

Twenty years ago, the AIDS activists were telling us that AIDS was spilling rampant into the heterosexual population, and in 5 years, there wouldn't be anybody in America who had not lost at least one friend or family member to it.

Yet 20 some years later, I have to admit, to the best of my knowledge I've never known anyone who died of it, has it or who has told me they are HIV-positive.

I dunno, maybe I'm just hanging out in the wrong (right?) crowds so I'm just not seeing it, but these warnings are beginning to have sort of a "Chicken Little" quality to them...

Clinton had this info nine years ago. He could have given aid to Afican countries for education. He could have helped foster democracy, and guided countries with the resources necessary to avoid poverty. He got the report and didn't do squat. Like all other events under his watch, the bill for this failure is come due. Too bad the pubbies are the ones to have to figure out how to deal with it. V's wife.

Sure, let's hand over another $10 billion a year to UN thieves. Matbe a million or two will find it's way to the dying. BTW, isn't an AIDS epidemic self-curing? We know from the media that this isn't a fairy problem; that is a hetrosexual problem. Yah gotta figure that at some point, these folks are too weak to have sex and the spread ends.

Didn't we see some publicity last year about an experimental cream that prevents the spread of AIDS? Has that been surpressed because the UN folks can't get a cut of THAT revenue stream?

Hm. Zambia, Uganda, and Poland seem to have figured out how to slow the spread of AIDS. So there's a way to do it.

I'd be all for helping out in this. Watching these countries internally destruct will harm us in the long run. First, from a moral stance. Secondly, they'll become fertile grounds for terrorist recruitment if we don't help out.

BUT -- what's the money to be spent on? In a number of these countries, the religious leaders oppose training people in how to use condoms and distributing them, due to their birth control function, and because this would seem to be enabling promiscuity or unchaste behavior. Also, in many of these cultures, women are discouraged from having any control over sexual relationships or birth control.

Trying to save existing people by distribution of cheap retroviral drugs is the moral thing to do, but to depend on it as the primary means of dealing with an AIDS pandemic is immoral, as it's known to be less effective than prevention. But in order to get prevention to be effective, some cultural changes will have to be accepted by these populations that they resent as "Westernizing" them.

AIDS will kill nearly 70 million people over the next 20 years..

That's less than 4 million per year.

AIDS will kill nearly 70 million people over the next 20 years...

Oh well...you want to do the sphincter bone dance, you have to pay the band..."Blame it on the Buttsa Nova"...

FMCDH

AIDS will kill nearly 70 million people over the next 20 years unless rich nations step up their efforts to curb the disease, the United Nations warned Tuesday in a report showing the epidemic is still in its early stages.

We stepped in already. We told them how to prevent AIDS.

There is a reason that the Puritans didn't have a problem with STDs.

Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry

The following was written by Kary Mullis for the introduction to the book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter H. Duesberg (Regnery Publishing, INC; Washington DC, 1996):

In 1988 I was working as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, CA, setting up analytic routines for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). I knew a lot about setting up analytic routines for anything with nucleic acids in it because I invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction. That's why they hired me.

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), on the other hand, was something I did not know a lot about. Thus, when I found myself writing a report on our progress and goals for the project, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, I recognized that I did not know the scientific reference to support a statement I had just written: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

So I turned to the virologist at the next desk, a reliable and competent fellow, and asked him for the reference. He said I didn't need one. I disagreed. While it's true that certain scientific discoveries or techniques are so well established that their sources are no longer referenced in the contemporary literature, that didn't seem to be the case with the HIV/AIDS connection. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten. But as I would soon learn, the name of that individual - who would surely be Nobel material - was on the tip of no one's tongue.

Of course, this simple reference had to be out there somewhere. Otherwise, tens of thousands of public servants and esteemed scientists of many callings, trying to solve the tragic deaths of a large number of homosexual and/or intravenous (IV) drug-using men between the ages of twenty-five and forty, would not have allowed their research to settle into one narrow channel of investigation. Everyone wouldn't fish in the same pond unless it was well established that all the other ponds were empty. There had to be a published paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. There just had to be.

I did computer searches, but came up with nothing. Of course, you can miss something important in computer searches by not putting in just the right key words. To be certain about a scientific issue, it's best to ask other scientists directly. That's one thing that scientific conferences in faraway places with nice beaches are for.

I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could cite the reference. I didn't like the ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth century Black Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense.

Finally, I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and AIDS research, DL Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer. So I asked him.

With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control? "

I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?"

"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.

"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?" the good doctor offered.

"I read that too, DL Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS.

This time, DL Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet an acquaintance across the room.

Cut to the scene inside my car just a few years ago. I was driving from Mendocino to San Diego. Like everyone else by now, I knew a lot more about AIDS than I wanted to. But I still didn't know who had determined that it was caused by HIV. Getting sleepy as I came over the San Bernardino Mountains, I switched on the radio and tuned in a guy who was talking about AIDS. His name was Peter Duesberg, and he was a prominent virologist at Berkeley. I'd heard of him, but had never read his papers or heard him speak. But I listened, now wide awake, while he explained exactly why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren't any. No one had ever proved that HIV causes AIDS. When I got home, I invited Duesberg down to San Diego to present his ideas to a meeting of the American Association for Chemistry. Mostly skeptical at first, the audience stayed for the lecture, and then an hour of questions, and then stayed talking to each other until requested to clear the room. Everyone left with more questions than they had brought.

I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows necessarily what causes AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But we're both certain about what doesn't cause AIDS.

We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.

We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint other than the fact that they have the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take this drug for any reason.

We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.

I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time

"AIDS will kill nearly 70 million people over the next 20 years unless rich nations step up their efforts to curb the disease, the United Nations warned Tuesday in a report showing the epidemic is still in its early stages."

The term "rich nations" means the United States. If it saves one flaming fag- isn't it worth it!?!

HIV/AIDS has never broken out of high-risk populations in the U.S. With their golden goose running dry, the WHO and CDC pounced on Africa, declaring anyone with extended weight loss, nausea, and the presence of any one of several dozen diseases, including the very common hepatitis and TB, to be AIDS-infected.

Naturally, it is quite simple to generate such apocalyptic statistics in a continent with a tropical climate, no sanitation, no refrigeration, poor personal hygiene, and unpotable water.

The shakedown and junk science continue.

Remember the big uproar early last year about AIDS in Africa, and how it was going to kill so many millions and so utterly devestate the entire continent that it would pose a threat to US national security because all the governments over there would fall apart? (Like they don't already anyway.) Well, a week or so ago a report came out saying the number of South Africa's AIDS cases is already leveling off, just like it did in the US. The whole thing was a scam to get American money into the pockets of leftists.

"The world can't afford a whole continent to be destabilized because of AIDS. It's going to have implications for all continents," Piot said.

Destabilized because of AIDS? More like, destabilized because of stupidity.

Don't you know that to find the truth quotient in a liberal panic mongering crisis, you need only take their numbers and divide by INFINITY?

If you had read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, you know that this is report is all bunko. The media will promote this as coming into the affluent suburb near you, where AIDS will affect your own kids. An outright lie designed to drum up activist support.

You know, I just can't understand the male preoccupation with anal sex to begin with, and that's the HETERO population wanting it from US.

My guess as to the HOMO preoccupation is that one wants to experience what it must feel like to be a woman. I, however, am one woman that has no desire to find out what it feels like to be a GAY MALE...I'll stick to intercourse with the equipment God put on the female blueprints, thank you very much.

Yet 20 some years later, I have to admit, to the best of my knowledge I've never known anyone who died of it, has it or who has told me they are HIV-positive.

I've known probably a dozen or so people who got AIDs or are HIV + and every one of them was either gay, or shooting heroin.

The heroin istas are all dead, while a couple of the gays have been livng HIV+ for about ten years now.

Only a couple of very simple rules to obey to make it damn near impossible to contract.