There Will Be No Heterosexual AIDS Epidemic, Experts Admit

Published at GNN, June 2008

– An orphan in New York City receiving Aids drugs – was he ever really infected?

The World Health Organization confesses that 25 years of international Aids projections and programs were based on fear, not evidence. But they still want you to believe them.

It is official: Aids is not explicable by sexual transmission. There is no heterosexual Aids pandemic, and further, there will be no heterosexual Aids pandemic.

“Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits”, The Independent announced on Sunday, June 8, 2008, mimicking what I have been reporting for years (and what some of my colleagues have been reporting for decades).

No, really. But take it from someone you trust, Dr. Kevin de Cock of the World Health Organization: “[T]here will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.”

“A 25-year health campaign was misplaced outside the continent of Africa,” the article concedes, daring you hang them all. And so they’re quick to add a massive fiction: “But the disease still kills more than all wars and conflicts”

The authorities explain that they misled the entire world, for decades, because admitting the grandeur of their farce would have encouraged their critics: “Any revision of the threat was liable to be seized on by those who rejected HIV as the cause of the disease.” Of course! We’ve got to protect flawed science from criticism!

But, regardless of past and current performance (and admissions of outright massive fraud), the authorities at the WHO and UNAIDS still want you to believe them, when they talk about Aids, Bird Flu, Sars, and other advertised but not achieved super-pandemics.

Such a weak defense might encourage a curious mind to wonder at the other flaws in their paradigm. For example, are we now to believe that there is a virus that causes a fatal disease, but only in Africans, (wherever in the world they may be), gay men and drug addicts? But not the entirety of the human population that is sexually active?

The answer to the riddle may be found in the actual cause of “HIV” – namely, “HIV testing.” Figure out who is tested, how the tests work (or, more to the point, how they don’t work), and who the tests are said to be accurate for, and you’ll get an understanding of how the “Aids” diagnosis – now, no better than a brand name applied to poverty and drug addiction – actually works.

How do “Hiv tests” work? In sum, they don’t work at all. They come up as “false positives” in numbers far exceeding “true positives”:

“Sir, In the May 9 issue of The Lancet, Round the World correspondents discussed AIDS-associated problems in former Eastern bloc countries…I would like to emphasize another alarming concern – namely, the rapid growth in false-positive HIV tests in the former USSR, and in Russia especially. In 1990, of 20.2 million HIV tests done in Russia only 12 were confirmed and about 20,000 were false positives. 1991 saw some 30,000 false positives out of 29.4 million tests, with only 66 confirmations.” (The Lancet, June 1992)

They have no ability to determine if someone has or does not have the antibodies they think they’re looking for; the interpretation of “HIV positive” is subjective and not consistent:

“At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.” (Abbott labs HIV-1/2 test, 1986 to the present).


They don’t produce singular or diagnostically specific results – they cross-react all over the map:

Heterophile antibodies are a well-recognized cause of erroneous results in immunoassays. We describe here a 22-month-old child with heterophile antibodies reactive with bovine [Cow] serum albumin and caprine [Goat] proteins causing false-positive results to human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] type 1 and other infectious serology testing. (CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY IMMUNOLOGY, July 1999)


False-positive ELISA test results can be caused by alloantibodies resulting from transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear.” (Doran, et al. False-Positive and Indeterminate Human Immunodeficiency Virus Test Results in Pregnant Women. Arch Family Medicine, 2000)


The secondary tests that are sometimes used to give a sense of validity to an initial test are either reformulations of the same material (the Western Blot), or are synthetic genetic probes (PCR Viral Load) that likewise cross-react and give no diagnostically specific reaction (and these tests are rarely to never used when you’re talking about “Aids in Africa”).

Persons at risk of HIV-1 infection have been classified incorrectly as HIV infected because of Western blot results, but the frequency of false-positive Western blot results is unknown.” (JAMA. 1998; 280: 1080-1085)


The HIV-1 PCR assay was designed to monitor HIV therapy, not to diagnose HIV infection…In patients (like ours) with a low prior probability of disease, almost all positive test results are false positive.” (False Positive HIV Diagnosis b HIV-1 Plasma Viral Load Testing. Ann Intern Med, 1999.)


Helminth (parasitic worm) “load“ is correlated to HIV plasma Viral Load, and successful deworming is associated with a significant decrease in HIV plasma Viral Load.” (Threatment of intestinal worms is associated with decreased HIV plasma viral load. J.AIDS, September, 2002)


How is “Aids” diagnosed in Africa? Aids in Africa is and has always been a clinical diagnosis. It is here too, but we’re more attached to a process of testing, which is, in essence, illusory, because the tests are limited to use in certain groups, for whom the non-specific tests are said to have a “higher positive predictive value”, or to be “more accurate.” But in Africa, this is dispensed with entirely, and “Aids” is diagnosed based on the symptoms of hunger, thirst, TB and malaria – in other words, poverty.

Our attention is now focused on the considerably large number of the seronegative group (135/227, 59%) who were clinically diagnosed as having AIDS. All the patients had three major signs: weight loss, prolonged diarrhoea, and chronic fever. Many of them also had other AIDS-associated signs, such as lymphadenopathy, tuberculosis, dermatological diseases, and neurological disorders.” (Hishida O et al. Clinically diagnosed AIDS cases without evident association with HIV type 1 and 2 infections in Ghana Lancet. 1992 Oct 17).

TThe numbers that have been reported are also entirely fabricated based on exponential projections from one small group to entire populations. Very recently, these numbers have been revised to such a massive degree so as to drive the the AIDS prognosticators to painful public redaction:

In Swaziland this year, the rate of HIV infection among young women decreased remarkably, from 32.5 to 6 percent. A drop of 81% – overnight. UNICEF’s Swaziland representative, Dr. Alan Brody, told the press “The problems is that all the sero-surveillance data came from pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics was based on that.” (August, 2004, IRIN News, the humanitarian news and analysis service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Cited by Scheff, 2005, Knowing is Beautiful. GNN)

Who are the tests considered “accurate” for? The tests are only considered to be “accurate” for certain groups. Those considered to be at “high risk” are much more likely to be tested, and to have their tests interpreted as either a “true positive,” or, as you can see below, a “false negative.” In other words, if they want you for the “AIDS” diagnosis, they’ll get you:

Suppose, for example, a single rapid test that has 99.4% specificity is administered to 1,000 people, meaning six will test false-positive. That error rate won’t matter much in areas with a high prevalence of HIV,because in all probability the people testing false-positive will have the disease.”

What disease? Aids? Or Poverty? And can you tell the difference from the tests?

But if the same test was performed on 1,000 white, affluent suburban housewives – a low-prevalence population – in all likelihood all positive results will be false, and positive predictive values plummet to zero. (Coming to Your Clinic – Candidates for Rapid Tests. Aids Alert, 1998)

Here is the new philosophy of AIDS, and it’s quite a shift (From the Independent): “Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.”

So how did we get to, “it’s only gay men, Africans, drug addicts and prostitutes,” from the advertised version for twenty-five years: “Everyone is at equal risk to contract HIV and to develop AIDS.” What happened to the theory of sexual transmission?

The 10-year 1997 study by Dr. Nancy Padian had a lot to do with its downfall. The study took 175 “mixed” heterosexual couples (that is, one partner testing “positive” and one “negative”), who practiced vaginal and anal sex [for the latter – 37.9% at the commencement of the study, decreasing to 8.1% by the end], both with and without condoms [32.2% condom use at the beginning, increasing to 74% at the end]. But no matter how these folks did it, nobody who was negative became positive:

“We followed up 175 HIV-discordant couples [one partner tests positive, one negative] over time, for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow up… No transmission [of HIV] occurred among the 25% of couples who did not use their condoms consistently, nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up…”

We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study [nobody became HIV positive]…This evidence argues for low infectivity in the absence of either needle sharing and/or other cofactors.”“

Padian determined that outside of intravenous drug use, this was not a very transmissible “sexually-transmissible disease.” But there is a contention made by Dr. de Cock that some sort of special sexual activity in Sub-Saharan Africa must (but is not evidenced to) explain the differences in “HIV prevalence”. It’s worth looking at studies of sex and “HIV positivity” for comparison. Does sex correlate with “HIV positivity” more than I.V. drug addiction?

In West Africa, these women, all prostitutes, have remained negative for more than five years:

“[This study involved] a group of repeatedly exposed but persistently seronegative female prostitutes in The Gambia, West Africa…have worked as prostitutes for more than five years, use condoms infrequently with clients and only rarely with their regular partners and have a high incidence of other sexually transmitted diseases” (Rowland-Jones S et al. HIV-specific cytotoxic T-cells in HIV-exposed but uninfected Gambian women. Nat Med. 1995 Jan)

In sum, lots of STDs, lots of exposure to HIV positive persons, and no HIV. Here, as reported on PBS’s “RX for Survival” (2005) a group of prostitutes refuses to get sick:

“In Nairobi, a group of prostitutes appear to have natural immunity against H.I.V…. because they have an abnormally large number of killer T-cells.” (New York Times, 2005. Author: ANITA GATES)

In this study in Tel Aviv, girl and boy prostitutes, (with and without original bits and pieces), don’t turn “positive,” unless they’re injection drug users:

“Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence was studied in an unselected group of 216 female and transsexual prostitutes … All 128 females who did not admit to drug abuse were seronegative; 2 of the 52 females (3.8%) who admitted to intravenous drug abuse were seropositive. “ (Modan B et al. Prevalence of HIV antibodies in transsexual and female prostitutes. Am J Public Health. 1992 Apr)

In Tijuana, among a group of hundreds of prostitutes, condoms were used by a slight majority, but then, they said, for less than half the time:

“In order to determine whether prostitutes operating outside of areas of high drug abuse have equally elevated rates of infection, 354 prostitutes were surveyed in Tijuana, Mexico… None of the 354 [blood] samples…was positive for HIV-1 or HIV-2. Condoms were used by 59% of prostitutes but for less than half of their sexual contacts. … Infection with HIV was not found in this prostitute population despite the close proximity to neighboring San Diego, CA, which has a high incidence of diagnosed cases of AIDS, and to Los Angeles, which has a reported 4% prevalence of HIV infection in prostitutes.” (Hyams KC et al. HIV infection in a non-drug abusing prostitute population. Scand J Infect Dis. 1989)


No condoms, no drug use – zero positivity. The same is found in the US and throughout Europe. Injection drug use, not sex, equals “HIV positivity.”

HIV infection in non-drug using prostitutes tends to be low or absent, implying that sexual activity does not place them at high risk, while prostitutes who use intravenous drugs are far more likely to be infected with HIV. Other prostitute studies tend to be small but similarly emphasize the central role of drug use as a major risk factor: in New York City, 50 per cent of 12 drug users were positive, compared with 7 per cent of 65 nonusers; in Italy, 59 per cent of 22 drug users were positive, whereas none of the nonusers were. None of the 50 prostitutes tested in London, 56 in Paris, or 399 in Nuremberg were seropositive.” (Rosenberg MJ, Weiner JM. Prostitutes and AIDS: a health department priority?. Am J Public Health. 1988 Apr)

That doesn’t sound like much of an STD.

So, do you still believe the WHO, and the medical authorities when they talk about Aids? Despite their incredible, world-changing lies and deceptions, advertising campaigns and persecution of dissenting scientists, do you still believe them when they say that Aids is still a sex-disease, but now, only if you’re Black, gay or poor enough?

We used to have a science in the early 20th Century, that similarly was able to pick the unfit out of risk groups – it was called Eugenics. If humanity is nothing else, we are certainly dogged in our ability to re-invent our old, bad ideas, again and again. (See “”)


For the reprehensibly curious, I’ve linked my 2003 exploration of the topic of Aids causes, numbers, drugs and tests. [Here]

I Support Informed Consent in MedicineKnowing Is ImportantTesting is Dangerous



  1. From the Daily Tellygraff
    June 12, 2008. Tarquin McTremble-Nee

    Scientists and the general public today were stunned today to hear that HIV is only transmissible between gay men who have sex with other gay men, intravenous drug users, prostitutes, Morris dancers, macaque monkeys and impoverished black people.
    “HIV is not an equal opportunity disease; it picks and chooses its victims in a devious manner that we don’t yet fully understand.” Said Dr Flaky, chief of AIDS Memery at the National Institute of Stealth. He added, “but with another few billion dollars we’re sure to find out.”
    “It’s a well known fact that these high risk groups all “do sex” differently to the rest of us. Anything other than the missionary position, with a paper bag over the head, the lights off and a steaming cup of cocoa on hand is just begging to catch this deadly pathogen, the deadly virus that causes AIDS, leading to certain death, leaving its victims horribly disfigured and dead, and did I forget to mention it kills you?” Emphasized Dr Jello, one-time NIH researcher, now semi-retired and doing something with dill pickles in Maryland.
    “The mechanism by which HIV selects only perverts, prossies, primates and poor people of colour is as much a mystery to me as Origami.” Dr JP Munchkin, erstwhile macaque “researcher” commented yesterday. “I have a highly important meeting to attend,” he added, waving his magazine in its brown paper wrapper, and heading toward the Gents’ facilities.
    The WHO’s UNAIDS staff declined to comment on this queer turn of events but issued an immediate press release: “We’re right, we’re right, we’re always right; even when we’re wrong we’re right, so there!”

  2. We’re at an odd place in time, aren’t we?

    We’re sort of back to 1984. What groups were ‘at risk’ then? Gays, IV drug users and Haitians (black, for shorthand).

    With just one announcement, we’ve taken “AIDS” back 24 years. Now what?

  3. Now, you fly it from the rafters, and make the blatant racism of the claim speak for itself. It’s not science, not in the least, and it needs a public airing.

    The Left that has embraced this, will be scandalized to find they’ve put their faith in a handful of real-life scoundrels, like Robert Gallo, who’ve aggrandized their own egos and bank accounts at the expense of the trusting world public.

    Now what? Spread the word.

  4. Absolutely. That’s what our concern must be right now. Spread the word. Let everyone see what is behind this.


    What a load of shite!! This is not science.

    And the left, good God, they have been embracing this.

    And the stars! Where is Sharon Stone, Madonna, Bono, Annie Lennox? let’s hear from these idiots now about the science they believe in that convinces them that AIDS is real and that it is caused by a virus that discriminates according to race and sexual orientation.

    Where are they? They have been supporting this and raising money for the machine that has just given us a great big: WE LIED!

    • Great post, Manu! :-]

      It’s been a while…but I’m back here…seeing what insightful posts there are.

      And, people like Annie Lennox, Madonna, and Sharon Stone


      have untouchable reverance for me, just because I’m a gay guy!

  5. Jump on the bandwagon, everybody. The band’s playing on, but a different tune:

    The exploitation of Aids

    The Aids scare was one of the most distorted, duplicitous and cynical public health panics of the last 30 years

    o Brendan O’Neill
    o Thursday June 12 2008

    Finally we have a high-level admission that there is no threat of a global Aids pandemic among heterosexuals. After 25 years of official scaremongering about western societies being ravaged by the disease – with salacious, tombstone-illustrated government propaganda warning people to wear a condom or “die of ignorance” – the head of the World Health Organisation’s HIV/Aids department says there is no need for heterosexuals to fret.

    Kevin de Cock, who has headed the global battle against Aids, said at the weekend that, outside very poor African countries, Aids is confined to “high-risk groups”, including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers. And even in these communities it remains quite rare. “It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in countries [outside sub-Saharan Africa]”, he said. In other words? All that hysterical fearmongering about Aids spreading among sexed-up western youth was a pack of lies.

    Much of the media has treated Dr De Cock’s admission as a startling revelation. In truth, experts have known for many years that in the vast majority of the world, Aids has little impact on the “general population”. In her new book The Wisdom of Whores, Elizabeth Pisani – who worked for 10 years in what she refers to as “the Aids bureaucracy” – admits that by 1998 it was clear that “HIV wasn’t going to rage through the billions in the ‘general population’, and we knew it”.

    Some people knew it earlier. In 1987, my friend and colleague Dr Michael Fitzpatrick wrote a fiery pamphlet titled The Truth About the Aids Panic. At the height of the Conservative government’s scary tombstone campaign (“Don’t die of ignorance”), he wrote: “There is no good evidence that Aids is likely to spread rapidly in the West among heterosexuals.” In Britain, most of the small-scale spread of “heterosexual Aids” has been a result of infected individuals arriving from Africa. In the UK in the whole of the 1980s – the decade of the Great Aids Panic – there were 20 cases of HIV acquired through heterosexual contact with an individual infected in Europe.

    And it isn’t the case that the heterosexual pandemic failed to materialise because officialdom’s omnipresent pro-condom propaganda was a success. According to James Chin, a clinical professor of epidemiology at the University of California at Berkeley and author of the new book The Aids Pandemic, it was always a “glorious myth” that there would be an “HIV epidemic in general populations”. That myth was the product of “misunderstanding or deliberate distortions of HIV epidemiology” by Unaids and other Aids activists, says Chin.

    It is time to recognise that the Aids scare was one of the most distorted, duplicitous and cynical public health panics of the past 30 years. Instead of being treated as a sexually transmitted disease that affected certain high-risk communities, and which should be vociferously tackled by the medical authorities, the “war against Aids” was turned into moral crusade.

    Both Conservative and New Labour governments exploited the disease to create a new moral framework for society. Through baseless fearmongering, officials sought to police and regulate the behaviour of the public. No longer able to appeal to outdated Victorian ideals of chastity or restraint, the powers-that-be used the spectre of an Aids calamity to terrify us into behaving “responsibly” in sexual and social matters.

    They were aided and abetted by the rump of the radical left. Gay rights campaigners, feminists and left-leaning health and social workers stood shoulder-to-shoulder, first with the Tories and later with Labour, in spreading the “glorious myth” of a possible future Aids pandemic. An unholy alliance of old-style, prudish conservatives and post-radical, lifestyle-obsessed leftists latched on to Aids as a disease that might provide them with a sense of moral purpose.

    And they ruthlessly sought to silence anyone who questioned them. Those who challenged the idea that Aids would devour sexually promiscuous young people and transform once-civilised western societies into diseased dystopias were denounced as “Aids deniers” and “heretics”. Anyone who suggested that homosexuals were at greater risk than heterosexuals – and therefore the focus of government funding and, where necessary, medical assistance should be in gay communities – was denounced as homophobic. Nothing could be allowed to stand in the way of the glorious moral effort to make everyone submit to the sexual and moral conformism of the Aids crusaders.

    Even in Africa – where there is a serious and deadly Aids crisis in some countries – the international focus on Aids has been motivated more by pernicious moralism than straightforward charity. Diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis are bigger killers than Aids. Yet focusing on Aids allows western governments and NGOs to lecture Africans about their morality and personal behaviour. It also adds a new gloss to the misanthropic population-control arguments of western charities, which now present their promotion of condoms in “overly fecund” Africa as a means of preventing the spread of disease.

    The relentless politicisation and moralisation of Aids has not only distorted public understanding of the disease and generated unnecessary fear and angst – it has also potentially cost lives. James Chin estimates that UNAIDS wastes around $1bn a year in activities such as “raising awareness” about Aids and preventing the emergence of the disease in communities that are at little risk. How many lives could that kind of money save, if it were used to develop drugs and deliver them to infected or at-risk communities? It is time people treated Aids as a normal disease, rather than as an opportunity for spreading their own moral agendas.

  6. I found the responses to the article a bit disheartening. A sort of “oh, now it’s just gays and poor Black Africans the money’s going to dry up – you heartless bastards”, while completely missing the point that they’ve been lied to for over 24 years. The ostrich capabilities of these people is astounding.

    What? Science lies? Well they didn’t know/didn’t mean it etc. I guess the fact that you are on your own when it comes to your health and welfare it too much for most people to contemplate.

  7. Don’t be disheartened by the crowd that read The Guardian, they are the typical left-wing woe is me is you is everyone types.

    Even if you told them that they had just won the lottery they would still be “worried” it.

    They are pissed off because Brendan O’Neill is actually talking about them.

    The fact that The Guardian printed this story is the most significant here. It is another “sign” that the AIDS machine has ground to a halt, the call for top brass to abandon ship has been called and now it is OK for the MSM to say that it was all a great big De Cock-up. The BBC has ignored this so far.

    The guardian actually took the lead. That is surprising to people, very surprising. Notice the sense of shock in everyone.It is only NOT surprising if like me you are cynical and are convinced that now those that feel the guiltiest will be the first to jump ship, swim ashore and dress like the locals…

    Know what I mean?

  8. Answer to request for Hyams, et al survey on Tijuana prostitutes:

    Slightly longer excerpt:

    “In order to determine whether prostitutes operating outside of areas of high drug abuse have equally elevated rates of infection, 354 prostitutes were surveyed in Tijuana, Mexico… None of the 354 [blood] samples from female prostitutes was positive for HIV-1 or HIV-2.

    The female prostitutes (mean age 29 years. range 18-49) had been active prostitutes for an average of 4.2 years and reported an average of 4.1 partners per week.

    Condoms were used by 59% of prostitutes but for less than half of their sexual contacts.

    Only 4 female prostitutes (1%) admitted to ever having used intravenous drugs.

    Infection with HIV was not found in this prostitute population despite the close proximity to neighboring San Diego, CA, which has a high incidence of diagnosed cases of AIDS, and to Los Angeles, which has a reported 4% prevalence of HIV infection in prostitutes.”

    They go on to say – and this ought to be telling – that these PROSTITUTES who have sex without condoms 41% of the time (and then only half that in practice) maybe aren’t “positive” because…

    you ready?

    Because ‘maybe’ they’re not exposed to “RISK GROUPS.”

    Who’s that?

    Homosexual Men and i.v. drug users.

    Some goddamn sex disease, huh?

    But it’s all in the testing. Antibody tests love to react with antibodies – and drug abuse produces lots and lots and lots of antibodies.

    The medical students call it hypergammaglobulinaemia. A lot of gamma globulin, IgM, immune-system proteins, antibodies, etc.

    You’re sick, you have a lot of these. You have malaria, TB, you have a lot of these. You have diarrhea, sepsis, you have a lot of these. Drug use, alcohol abuse, starving to death, being exposed to many toxins, you have a lot of these.

    So when the ‘hiv tests’ come up reactive all over the place in sick people, healthy people, mice, dogs, milkmaids, goat serum, etc… well, they have to decide before or after the fact, what the test is gonna mean. And that’s the whole “risk group” run-around.

    A gay man’s antibodies ‘weigh more’ in the minds of Aids researchers, than a straight man’s. And that’s just how this system works. And if you believe it indicates real infection in one, then you can’t excuse the other. And that means that all false positives are really true, and that there are probably billions of “hiv infected” people walking around, who just don’t know it.

    On the other hand, if your go with the lowest common denominator, the hardest logic, and you say that you can’t accuse one person of being “positive” if the identical result means nothing in someone else, then no one has ever been “hiv positive.”

    That’s why the test manufacturers work so hard in the small print, telling you there are no standards, that the diagnosis must always be made “clinically,” and not based on any test result. They tell you this, so you can’t sue them to ruin for non-diagnostic, but life-ending test results.

    Look up Audrey Seranno’s case from last year – she couldn’t sue the manufacturer for their fake test, she did sue the doctor and hospital for their fake diagnosis, however, and won.

    It’s an absolutely transparent lie, it’s right out there in the open, and it’s cracking open, at this very moment.

  9. Should we be taking bets as to who jumps first and furthest from the stinking sinking ship?

  10. Some pavement cracking in India:


    Does HIV cause AIDS
    Mayank Tewari
    Monday, June 09, 2008 02:26 IST

    Excerpt from the piece:

    “Among the main reasons dissenters cite in favour of their movement is skewed health funding, especially in developing countries. On May 10, the British Medical Journal carried an article calling for UNAIDS to be shut down as it distorts health funding. In it, Roger England, who heads a Grenada-based think tank, Health Systems Workshop, argued that too much is being spent on HIV compared to other diseases which kill more people.

    “It is no longer heresy to point out that far too much is spent on HIV relative to other needs and that this is damaging health systems. Although HIV causes 3.7% of mortality, it receives 25% of international healthcare aid and a big chunk of domestic expenditure. HIV aid often exceeds total domestic health budgets themselves.”

    Purushottam Muloli, a New Delhi-based member of Rethinking AIDS, a loose group of scientists and policy makers who do not agree with the prevalent HIV/AIDS theory, says he has been questioning the Indian health ministry and UNAIDS about the scientific evidence behind labelling sections of the population, such as homosexuals, high-risk

    “The health policy of the country is being controlled by international donors. Can you believe that the entire health budget of India is less than the amount of international funding the country receives on HIV?”

    Rethinking AIDS president David Crowe says the AIDS “dogma” persists because doctors are trained to obey their superiors. “There are many examples of bad medical advice becoming dogma due to the power of senior medical people. The dogma of AIDS has resulted in hopelessness and despair caused by the stigma of HIV+ status.”

  11. The Daily Dribble
    Hamish McMiddlemanagement

    Terrible Mishap at the Weill-Cornell Laboratory!

    Colleagues at Weill-Cornell University Macaque Lab were horrified to discover this morning that
    Dr JayPeeMooreau had been transmogrified into one of his macaques.

    Dr Meatloaf Bucketswill commented “We think there must have been some sort of nipple tweak in
    the space-time continuum. When we left him here yesterday afternoon he was his usual pusillanimous
    self, and quite happy to be left in charge of his macaques overnight. We have to wonder whether
    this latest UN admission of high-level mendacity hasn’t pushed him over the edge; that and the
    fact that his microbicide funding is at risk – macaques as you know are stubbornly heterosexual
    and never black.”

    Another colleague Dr Rufus Womble Shitrock, who declined to be named, said, “Well it was going to
    happen at some stage wasn’t it? – I mean one can’t ‘fiddle’ with primates day in day out and not
    expect some form of divine retribution – not that I’m one of those loony
    CreationistConspiracyTheory NutJob types.”

    Co-fiddler Adull Mammarycranium was very distraught at finding Dr Mooreau so incapacitated and in
    an advanced state of incontinence: “I’ts soch e shime – he rel’ly luv’d his wark, and he nevver
    let phallure standing in his way of porblication – not many HIV rese’echers would do that yu knaw!
    Eeh thunk this laytest UN admishun jest mayd hem verry afrad. Hee is alzo perzunna non gratta on
    hiz oen wibsight”

    Dr Macaque Mooreau had to be isolated from the other macaques for unstated reasons.
    The Chief Director of the lab, Dr Petrie Agaragar stated: “Never liked the Pommie fart anyway but
    don’t worry – we’ll make good use of him.”

  12. During the 1980’s I was participated in the rise of Korean Massage parlours in New York City from 2 to 25 over a 10 year period. During that time, hundreds of Korean women engaged in unprotected sex with up to and over 10 partners a day (these places were run by the girls themselves , who took pride in the number of men they could service and really loved the unprotected sexuality that they offered. They never thought 1 bit about using “protection”. This phenom was duplicated in major cities all across the U.S. from Guam to Georgia. Yet the “AIDS ” wards are not full of 40 and 50 something Korean women? If some one can show me the statistics with a spike in the Korean population among women in these age groups , I would like to see it. Meanwhile South Korea, with over 40,000 US troops posted there since the 1950’s (almost NO condom use) rampant “freelance” and commercial sex, remains one of the lowest population groups for so called AIDS in the world. Thailand (except for its HUGE gay and TV population as well as IV drug abuse, is and always was in the same situation. The statistics can be misleading in Thailand as Thai’s (even non gay men )consider transgender and transvestite males to be “females”.

  13. [Back-breaking apologetics from the “new” authorities… but it’s just a new brand of BS. That is, Will they talk about the fraudulent tests? How about the dangerous to deadly drugs? Nope. Still a religion – albeit one with fighting orthodoxies. There are the acceptable “heretics” it seems, when the grand charades come to public view.]

    The authorities have lied, and I am not glad

    Dr Michael Fitzpatrick, author of 1987’s The Truth About the AIDS Panic, says it is a shame that AIDS insiders did not expose the myths and opportunism of the AIDS industry earlier. But still, better late than never.
    by Dr Michael Fitzpatrick

    There is a widely accepted view that Britain was saved from an explosive epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in the late 1980s by a bold campaign initiated by gay activists and radical doctors and subsequently endorsed by the government and the mass media.

    According to advocates of this view, we owe our low rates of HIV infection today largely to the success of initiatives such as the ‘Don’t Die of Ignorance’ leaflet distributed to 23million households and the scary ‘Tombstones and Icebergs’ television and cinema adverts (though they are always quick to add that we must maintain vigilance and guard against complacency).

    Now former AIDS industry insiders are challenging the imminent heterosexual plague story and many of the other scare stories of the international AIDS panic. James Chin, author of The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology with Political Correctness, is a veteran public health epidemiologist who worked in the World Health Organisation’s Global Programme on AIDS in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Elizabeth Pisani, a journalist turned epidemiologist and author of The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels and the Business of AIDS, spent most of the past decade working under the auspices of UNAIDS, which took over the global crusade against HIV in 1996. Once prominent advocates of the familiar doomsday scenarios, both have now turned whistleblowers on their former colleagues in the AIDS bureaucracy, a ‘byzantine’ world, according to Pisani, in which ‘money eclipses truth’.

    “Pisani reminds readers that ‘public health is inherently a somewhat fascist discipline’”

    For Chin, the British AIDS story is an example of a ‘glorious myth’ – a tale that is ‘gloriously or nobly false’, but told ‘for a good cause’. He claims that government and international agencies, and AIDS advocacy organisations, ‘have distorted HIV epidemiology in order to perpetuate the myth of the great potential for HIV epidemics to spread into “general” populations’. In particular, he alleges, HIV/AIDS ‘estimates and projections are “cooked” or made up’.

    While Pisani disputes Chin’s claim that UNAIDS epidemiologists deliberately overestimated the epidemic, she admits to what she describes as ‘beating up’ the figures, insisting – unconvincingly – that there is a ‘huge difference’ between ‘making it up (plain old lying) and beating it up’. Pisani freely acknowledges her role in manipulating statistics to maximise their scare value, and breezily dismisses the ‘everyone-is-at-risk nonsense’ of the British ‘Don’t Die of Ignorance’ campaign.

    Chin’s book offers a comprehensive exposure of the hollowness of the claims of the AIDS bureaucracy for the efficacy of their preventive campaigns. He provides numerous examples of how exaggerated claims for the scale of the HIV epidemic (and the risks of wider spread) in different countries and contexts enable authorities to claim the credit for subsequently lower figures, as they ‘ride to glory’ on curves showing declining incidence. As he argues, ‘HIV prevalence is low in most populations throughout the world and can be expected to remain low, not because of effective HIV prevention programmes, but because… the vast majority of the world’s populations do not have sufficient HIV risk behaviours to sustain epidemic HIV transmission’.

    By the late 1980s, it was already clear that, given the very low prevalence of HIV, the difficulty of transmitting HIV through heterosexual sex and the stable character of sexual relationships (even those having multiple partners tend to favour serial monogamy), an explosive HIV epidemic in Britain, of the sort that occurred in relatively small networks of gay men and drug users, was highly improbable, as Don Milligan and I argued in 1987 (1).

    As both Chin and Pisani indicate, high rates of heterosexually spread HIV infection remain the exceptional feature of sub-Saharan Africa (and parts of the Caribbean) where a particular pattern of concurrent networks of sexual partners together with high rates of other sexually transmitted infections facilitated an AIDS epidemic. Though this has had a devastating impact on many communities, Chin suggests that HIV prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean has been overestimated by about 50 per cent. The good news is that, contrary to the doom-mongering of the AIDS bureaucracy, the rising annual global HIV incidence peaked in the late 1990s and the AIDS pandemic has now passed its peak.

    “From AIDS to climate change, experts have been complicit in the prostitution of science to propaganda”

    Most significantly, the sub-Saharan pattern has not been replicated in Europe or North America, or even in Asia or Latin America, though there have been localised epidemics associated with gay men, drug users and prostitution, most recently in South-East Asia and Eastern Europe.

    Many commentators now acknowledge the gross exaggerations and scaremongering of the AIDS bureaucracy. It is clear that HIV has remained largely confined to people following recognised high-risk behaviours, rather than being, in the mantra of the AIDS bureaucracy, a condition of poverty, gender inequality and under-development. Yet they also accept the argument, characterised by Chin as ‘political correctness’, that it is better to try to terrify the entire population with the spectre of an AIDS epidemic than it is to risk stigmatising the gays and junkies, ladyboys and whores who feature prominently in Pisani’s colourful account.

    For Chin and Pisani, the main problem of the mendacity of the AIDS bureaucracy is that it leads to misdirected, ineffective and wasteful campaigns to change the sexual behaviour of the entire population, while the real problems of HIV transmission through high-risk networks are neglected. To deal with these problems, both favour a return to traditional public health methods of containing sexually transmitted infections through aggressive testing, contact tracing and treatment of carriers of HIV. Whereas the gay activists who influenced the early approach of the AIDS bureaucracy favoured anonymous and voluntary testing, our whistleblowers now recommend a more coercive approach, in relation to both diagnosis and treatment.

    Pisani reminds readers that ‘public health is inherently a somewhat fascist discipline’ (for example, quarantine restrictions have an inescapably authoritarian character) and enthusiastically endorses the AIDS policies of the Thai military authorities and the Chinese bureaucrats who are not restrained from targeting high-risk groups by democratic niceties. The problem is that, given the climate of fear generated by two decades of the ‘everyone-is-at-risk nonsense’, the policy now recommended by Chin and Pisani is likely to lead to more repressive interventions against stigmatised minorities (which will not help to deter the spread of HIV infection).

    Chin confesses that he has found it difficult ‘to understand how, over the past decade, mainstream AIDS scientists, including most infectious disease epidemiologists, have virtually all uncritically accepted the many “glorious” myths and misconceptions UNAIDS and AIDS activists continue to perpetuate’. An explanation for this shocking betrayal of principle can be found in a 1996 commentary on the British AIDS campaign entitled ‘Icebergs and rocks of the “good lie”’. In this article, Guardian journalist Mark Lawson accepted that the public had been misled over the threat of AIDS, but argued that the end of promoting sexual restraint (especially among the young) justified the means (exaggerating the risk of HIV infection): as he put it, ‘the government has lied and I am glad’ (2).

    This sort of opportunism is not confined to AIDS: in other areas where experts are broadly in sympathy with government policy – such as passive smoking, obesity and climate change – they have been similarly complicit in the prostitution of science to propaganda.

    It is a pity that Chin and Pisani did not blow their whistles earlier and louder, but better late than never.

    Dr Michael Fitzpatrick is the author of MMR and Autism: What Parents Need to Know (buy this book from Amazon(UK)) and The Tyranny of Health: Doctors and the Regulation of Lifestyle (buy this book from Amazon(UK)).


    LONDON – As World AIDS Day is marked on Monday, some experts are growing more outspoken in complaining that AIDS is eating up funding at the expense of more pressing health needs.

    They argue that the world has entered a post-AIDS era in which the disease’s spread has largely been curbed in much of the world, Africa excepted.

    “AIDS is a terrible humanitarian tragedy, but it’s just one of many terrible humanitarian tragedies,” said Jeremy Shiffman, who studies health spending at Syracuse University.

    Roger England of Health Systems Workshop, a think tank based in the Caribbean island of Grenada, goes further. He argues that UNAIDS, the U.N. agency leading the fight against the disease, has outlived its purpose and should be disbanded.

    “The global HIV industry is too big and out of control. We have created a monster with too many vested interests and reputations at stake, … too many relatively well paid HIV staff in affected countries, and too many rock stars with AIDS support as a fashion accessory,” he wrote in the British Medical Journal in May.

  15. I know that on Monday, Dec. 1, World AIDS Day 2008, my family and I will be spending time over at our local University for their “big program”. They roll out the red carpet over there for AIDS orththodoxy groups, the Health Dept. with free testing for all, and even the local news.
    I’m sure to find at least one person who will take a few minutes to listen to my story and recieve some information and a DVD.
    Remember gang, “one person at a time”. We will make a difference!
    What will you do with this World AIDS Day?

  16. Clean water?

    They don’t have it.

    Experts working on other health problems struggle to attract money and attention when competing with AIDS.

    “Diarrhea kills five times as many kids as AIDS,” said John Oldfield, executive vice president of Water Advocates, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that promotes clean water and sanitation.

    “Everybody talks about AIDS at cocktail parties,” Oldfield said. “But nobody wants to hear about diarrhea,” he said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *