Against a Pernicious and Racist HIV/AIDs Propaganda – Part 1

By

The Lion!

I am among those who dissent from the orthodox AIDS theory. Not the least because there are too many unexplained inconsistencies in the entire scientific-medical presumptions that underpin the theory.

How it is that a disease that was supposedly first discovered in England in 1959, in an English man named David Carr became a definitively African/African-American scrooge defies explanation.

In the late 1970s this disease/syndrome again reared its ugly head up in the gay community of San Francisco. At that time, the strange affliction tormented mostly the gay community of that American west coast city that it came to be known as GRIDS in the medical literature. “GRIDS” stands for Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

The official start of the AIDS epidemic dates from mid-1981, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report described cases of Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) in young, previously healthy gay men. Detailed reports of these and other cases, a few involving heterosexual drug injectors, were published in several medical journals.

Now this same disease has become the single defining feature of members of the African family at home and in the Diaspora if the western press is to be believed. If I may paraphrase Mr. Thabo Mbeki President of South Africa, “In other races AIDs is mostly homosexual, in the African race it is mostly heterosexual. Are we talking about the same disease?”

HIV/AIDS Testing

How come an imprecise medical theory, tenuous at best, disingenuously mischievous in most probability, became the central focus of the world’s political and social energy can best be attributed to intellectual default.

The problem with the HIV/AIDs theory is that it has not met the recognized scientific gold standard for the validation of a virus theory. Twenty years after the discovery of this so-called virus that is at the root of the so called global pandemic, there is no validated extraction of a live HIV virus from the fluid or tissues of a victim. More than two decades on, the reported global pandemic is a no show. The only epidemic that exists, exists in the delusional contortion of the more vulgar voyeuristic western press.

Consequently, in none of the numerous tests for HIV diagnosis is there any attempt to extract the live virus, culture it in a Petri-dish, identify it, and then test for its range of sensitivities. On the contrary, HIV tests focus on identifying the occurrence of some protein material in the blood which is then taken as confirmation of a positive diagnosis.

Why can’t “HIV” be isolated from fresh patient plasma even in cases where “viral load” numbers are through the roof?

The problem with the HIV test procedure is obvious to most informed minds. Rather than confirm the presence of a real virus in either the blood or the lymphatic system, it targets a non-specific immunoglobulin, a white blood cell which the body ordinarily uses to fight off sickness. This particular protein sequence is not peculiar to HIV virus. Its occurrence could be indicative of a host of diseases or conditions completely unrelated to HIV. Thus for instance, recent exposure to the malaria parasite, hepatitis virus, tuberculosis bacillus, could result in the occurrence of this protein sequence in the blood stream.

Now, the tragedy is that besides this flawed and ambivalent test routine, there is no other more positive way of demonstrating that a certain subject has been infected with the “most terrifying, devastating, and destructive plague in the history of humanity.”

Less important viruses implicated in diseases of lower international profiles are routinely extracted from live hosts, positively identified, cultured and passed through a sensitivity analysis. Viral diseases such as small pox, chicken pox, measles, and cold have been identified consistent with this gold standard. Why is it so impossible to do so without controversy after the billions of dollars that have gone into AIDs research this past twenty years?

In spite of the assurances of the progress made against this baleful ill, more and more people are succumbing to its death inducing influences. Yet those “more and more people” have not created any noticeable spike in death rates anywhere in the world except perhaps in those countries with a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS.

For instance in countries where according to the AIDS industry this scrooge has been supposedly destroying the productive population over the past twenty years like Uganda and South Africa, we notice in reality that the increase in the population rate is an average of 3% per annum (see the World Bank annual report 2004).

In other countries where HIV/AIDs prevalence rate is very low, like Japan and Spain, there has been noticeable fall in the population density and the population growth rate is less than 1% per annum, this ratio is below the required replacement rate.

What an inconsistent theory!

Blood Infection

Originally, the AIDS theory was that it was a disease of the blood and lymphatic system. Certain viruses were theorized to invade the blood stream and subsequently destroy the white blood cells following some mysterious triggering event.

We were told that it prevailed amongst intravenous drug users who exchange needles because they presumable passed infected syringes directly into their blood stream in the bid to get a hit. We were also told that the virus would pass via unsafe sexual practices like anal sex which normally broke capillaries, caused injuries and thus facilitated serum contact.

Contaminated blood products were highlighted as a very efficient route for HIV/AIDS transmission. This directly implicated hospitals which as we all know routinely deal with blood and blood products in the context of transmission. Since hospitals are inextricably linked with the use of intravenous needles, and blood transfusions, surgeries, internal examinations, it is clear that one is exposed to so many direct modes of accidentally contracting such a virus.

The theory also proposed that hemophiliacs were particularly susceptible because of their frequent need for blood transfusion. The assumption was that blood streams in the approved blood banks were often contaminated with viruses, and other agents, despite the then available screening technology.

Even with improvement in screening technologies for hospital blood products, accidental and delibrate transmission still occur via hospitals as borne out by the recent court cases in Libya where certain western doctors were accused of transmitting the HIV virus to sick children. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4935024.stm)

What the logic of the above detailed risk factors leads to is the irresistible conclusions that hospitals would be the most direct and efficient routes for contracting HIV/AIDs virus. In the early days of this so-called pandemic, we were witnesses to a series of direct blood to blood transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus in Canada, in Japan, in Russia, in Britain and the United States via hospitals and blood banks. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5215332.stm; See also Swinbanks, David, “Japan’s HIV blood scandal broadens out,” Nature, Volume 383, Issue 6598, pp. 291 (1996). )

Hospitals

Hospitals are sure routes to infections. This is clearly corroborated in numerous medical literatures dealing with the issue of hospital cleanliness and cross infections. Increasingly, there are also reports of hospital suber-bugs which hold the potential for a real global pandemic.

Anywhere a mass of people with different illness and sensitivities gather together, we can expect that despite the controls in place, there is bound to be a prevalence of infection higher than the norm.

Hospitals are not very clean places. The nature of the place makes it so. Despite the strenuous effort to maintain hygiene, the place usually is a breeding ground for super bugs.

There have been so many infamous instances of the transmission of bugs and virus through the hospital system that one can easily find a recent example to relate. The Red Cross tainted blood scandal in the Canadian blood system is one of those tragic-comedies that one hardly knows how to approach.

Hospitals being so infamously unclean in the best of times and places, combined with the nature and procedures of their business, are then among the most dangerous risk factors in the transmission of AIDs.

Yet there is a dissonance in the great effort at highlighting heterosexual intercourse as a sure route of contracting HIV/AIDs instead of the obvious logical suspect which is the hospital system.

Why this illogical presupposition?

Sex Disease

We have been advised to the point of distraction about the connection between HIV/AIDS and heterosexual contacts. But the question that is never addressed is how come the entire western world globally notorious for its licentiousness has escaped a melt down. How much of a threat is heterosexual intercourse in light of the HIV/AIDS so-called pandemic?

Actually, it was clear to the CDC in the mid 1980s that normal heterosexual intercourse was not a high risk factor in the transmission trail. This conclusion was based on the fact that wives of hemophiliacs infected with HIV viruses prior to strict blood screening procedures did not appear to have been by the virus despite having active sex lives.

Of the approximately 5000 married, HIV positive hemophiliacs, not one of their spouses has been documented to have contracted AIDS sexually (Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus, 1996).

In fact, 18 years into AIDS, nearly 9 out of 10 AIDS cases are men, 60% of whom are gay, yet the Army and the Jobs Corps for over 10 years have repeatedly shown that antibodies to HIV are equally distributed between the sexes (Burke, D. S., et al., J. Am. Med. Assoc. 263 (1990): 2074-2077; St. Louis, M. E., et al., J. Am. Med. Assoc. 266 (1991): 2387-2391).

Three studies, the most recent in 1997 (Padian, N. S., et al., Am. J. Epidemiol. 146 (1997): 350-357), consistently report that it takes thousands of sexual contacts for heterosexuals to develop antibodies to HIV. Specifically, on average, a woman must have 1000 unprotected sexual contacts with an HIV positive man to develop antibodies to HIV. For a man, the number is 8000-9000 sexual contacts with an HIV positive woman to develop antibodies to HIV. By comparison, to contract gonorrhea or syphilis requires 2-3 sexual contacts (Rasnick: A Rebuttal to the Durban Declaration, published in Nature July 6,2001).

Numerous court cases (wherein HIV carries have been persecuted for having sex) have equally underlined the fact that many instances of unprotected sex between HIV carriers and non-carriers did not result in any infection. The case of Trevor Smith a Canadian football player who was jailed for having sexual relationship with two Canadian women without telling them of his HIV status is illustrative of the perniciousness of the HIV agenda. Amidst sentimental moralizing, the judge sentenced Smith to two years imprisonment for having had consensual unprotected sex with two groupies without disclosing his HIV status. The saddest aspect of the case was that the two women all tested negative for HIV. Thus there was no infection despite repeated sexual intercourse. This little inconvenient fact which highlights the inconsistency of the AIDS theory was ignored as Trevor Smith was subjected to a modern day equivalent of the crucifixion. (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2007/02/08/smith-verdict.html)

Why this inconsistency? Why all this illogical frenzy? What is the hidden agenda behind this wicked and inconsistent HIV/AIDS theory?

The Lion!

March 18, 2007

Magic Johnson: Is It For Real or Is It Just Magic – The Inconsistencies of HIV/AIDS Theory

False Positives In HIV Tests – The Case of Andrew Stimpson

Tommy Morrison Fights Again Pt 2 – The Inconsistencies of HIV/AIDS Theory

Tommy Morrison Fights Again Pt 1 – The Inconsistencies of HIV/AIDS Theory

Top 100 AIDS Science Inconsistencies

Condoms As Protection — Inconsistencies Of The HIV/AIDS Theory

To Be Continued in Part 2.