Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Aids no longer a threat to heterosexuals in the US

Mind blowing article. Read this. I mean it; read it:

Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits.

Really?

A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared.

How can this be? What happened to the threat?
In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.
Ok, yeah, I also had a good laugh over that name. Kevin de Cock? Oy. But apparently, he's a real senior official of the World Health Organization. And he's telling us that sexually active heterosexuals in the United States are not at risk for aids anymore. Yup, this is HUGE.

So what happened? What has changed? Why aren't heterosexuals at risk? I mean, no one is truly safe, yes? Anyone remember this?

Um, could it be that maybe, just maybe, (hold the hate email), heterosexuals (outside of Africa) were never at risk? That major fundraising efforts for this horrible disease exaggerated the risk to non-homosexual and non-intravenous drug users, in order to panic the general population into donating gajillions of dollars to stop the disease, because they felt they personally were at risk? After all, how many heterosexuals would have dipped deep into their wallets had the high-risk groups been restricted to homosexuals, intravenous drug users and Africans? Maybe some. I don't think many.
Aids organisations, including the WHO, UN Aids and the Global Fund, have come under attack for inflating estimates of the number of people infected, diverting funds from other health needs such as malaria, spending it on the wrong measures such as abstinence programmes rather than condoms, and failing to build up health systems.
And further...
Critics of the global Aids strategy complain that vast sums are being spent educating people about the disease who are not at risk, when a far bigger impact could be achieved by targeting high-risk groups and focusing on interventions known to work, such as circumcision, which cuts the risk of infection by 60 per cent, and reducing the number of sexual partners.
That's fascinating. So by diverting attention from the people who are truly high risk for aids, and pouring money into prevention programs for people who really weren't at high risk, they might have actually harmed true aids victims in high risk groups.

I keep thinking about all the tv shows and movies I've seen that showed heterosexual people dying of aids, and how frightening they were to me. But that's Hollywood. I did a quick google on aids statistics and found that (admittedly not knowing at all how reliable this source is,) in 1985, when that Life magazine article came out, the number of American aids cases attributed to heterosexual transmission was 2.5 percent. But heterosexuals were all at high risk, yes? No one was safe.

Look, this isn't an anti-gay thing. I have no stake in promoting hate against gay people. This isn't a judgement. I've always said that I just don't care who anyone sleeps with privately, and I stand by that. Human beings are human beings. And frankly, I'm not the Boss of the World. But that doesn't mean that we are all equally at risk for the same disease, or even that some of us are at risk at all. Why is bigoted to say that aids might be spread by some forms of homosexual behavior? Because we wish it weren't so? Because it offends our sensibilities? No. Enough of this crap already.

My head exploded when I read this article. I keep waiting for it to appear on the front page of the New York Times. I don't think it will.

Do you think that lying about exaggerating the level of a threat in order to make it more common and ordinary and therefore raise more money for the cause justifies the lie exaggeration? Do you? I don't. I think it's despicable. I think it's playing God. And I think it cost lives in the true high risk groups. If I were an American gay man, I would be outraged.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear somebody tell you how global warming is killing the planet.

Boy, I am gonna get some hate email now. But I don't care. I think this article and the WHO admission was important enough to get out there.

Parenthetically, let me just tell you this: I will publish any and all comments about this posting unless you 1) use obscenities 2) call me names without any reasoning and 3) rant and rave like a lunactic.

17 comments:

abandoning eden said...

I don't think it was as malicious as it makes you seem. More like, they thought it would spread more rapidly in hetereosexual populations, and then it didn't turn out the way they thought it would. You make it seem like a big money making scheme, but a lot of good came of it as well; I grew up in the 80's, and even though I was somewhat sheltered in that I went to jewish school, by the time I was having sex I knew that I should NEVER have sex without a condom, it was just a given. In fact it was so ingrained that the first time I had sex without a condom (I was on birth control with a long term partner and we had both tested clean for STDs) I kinda freaked out a little bit about it and started crying. I think that was largely attributable to the aids public health campaign, and probably inhibited the spread of a whole lot of other STDs (in NYC now 1 in 4 adults have herpes...and that's WITH this public health campaign).

Also your comparison to "global warming" (which should more accurately be called "climate change"), is frankly pretty stupid. Yes, people freaked out about A and A didn't turn out to be as true as they thought, but that has absolutely no bearing on what people are currently freaking out about, which is B. B has no relation to A. You're argument is basically "ooooh scientists were wrong about something, now they must be wrong about EVERYTHING!" Good luck with that line of thinking.

hesh said...

I wonder who funded their research through hidden accounts? These sort of things always seem sketchy, although not having to get tested for STD's would rock, because that damned swab is real scary.

WebGirl said...

AE, herpes and v.d. are horrible and in some cases if untreated, fatal, and it's wonderful that thanks to AIDS education, lots of Americans are practicing safe sex. But at what cost? Justifying spending hundreds of billions (yes billions) of dollars on AIDS education amongst a population that is not at risk for it by saying that the beneficiaries are now safe from other, less lethal std's doesn't work! The World Health Organization solicited this money to fight a horrible deadly disease and then instead of funneling the money into the high risk populations, where it should have gone, they spent over 70% of it on those who didn't need it. Why? Because they didn't want to stigmatize the real high risk population? In theory, if they had channeled that money to the proper places, they could have saved the lives of millions of Africans and millions of American homosexual men!

To put it in liberal vernacular "When the World Health Organization lied, people died." There's a bumper sticker for you!

And you honestly think they just made a boo- boo? Doctors have been saying for years that heterosexuals in the states weren't really at risk for AIDS and have been labeled bigots for doing so, so they kept their mouths shut. And now, hundreds of billions of dollars later, now that we've poured out our charity (myself included), attended all of our awareness programs, thrown our gala fundraisers, now they are saying, "oops. My bad." Yeah, I think they lied. Was it malicious? No, I think it was a dishonest attempt to a) de-stigmatize the disease in an effort to mainstream homosexual practice and b) create fear in non-risk populations to bring fundraising to a whole new national level. There is no question that the call to fight AIDS has been a national battle cry in the United States, even more so than the fight against cancer (which heterosexuals are at much greater risk for!). But how misguided this effort was...by masking the real high risk groups, they weren't treating the people who needed the most help. Have you seen the numbers on how many Africans with AIDS can't get the drugs to fight it? Shame on the WHO and shame on the American media that promoted this crap.

Why do I think that the global-warming/climate-change cause is following the same path? Because just as with AIDS, there is an underground movement in the scientific community that is saying that we are NOT in danger of destroying Mother Earth and that the panic about climate change is pure nonsense. And just as with AIDS, these scientists are being beaten down and dismissed. And just as with AIDS, billions of dollars are going to be poured into the effort to combat climate change (this is part of McCains platform and Obama's platform...we are screwed with either candidate) and in twenty years, we are going to be kicking ourselves and saying, oops, I guess we weren't right about the climate science at all. Oh well, no harm done in going green, right? But there is harm! Who do you think is going to pay for all this? Why don't we address a real environmental issue that will affect our future, like how to increase our production of oil without damaging our natural resources? Put some funding behind that!

I'm just out of my mind about this. Where is the outrage?
----------------------------------

On a completely separate note...to LMF who wrote me the 9,000 word email claiming that AIDS was sent to us by God to kill gay people 1) please don't write me anymore 2) congratulations on knowing the mind of God 3) if it's a "divine scourge to punish gays," why don't lesbians get it? 4) don't write me anymore 5) don't write me anymore. Thanks.

WG

Manu said...

If "AIDS" is really caused by a virus, then this news is nuts.

If heterosexual AIDS is over then so is "AIDS" as we know it in its entirety, unless we are now facing THE FIRST VIRUS IN HISTORY TO DISCRIMINATE ACCORDING TO SKIN COLOUR AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

Or maybe, just maybe all those evil "AIDS dissidents" everyone has enjoyed smearing, insulting, censoring and comparing to holocaust deniers, were right all along, and that the syndrome know as "AIDS" (35+ preexisting diseases and conditions all with their own cause and possible cures) was not caused by a virus. For which incidentally there is still no SPECIFIC test to detect virus or antibodies it with.

yes as amazing as it sounds that is the case. There is not test to detect HIV with. The disclaimers on ALL HIV test kits says that clearly.

So, maybe we should all start to look at what all those brave people like Peter Duesberg, Celia Farber, Christine Maggiore, Nobel Prize Kerry Mullis, John Lauritsen, Liam Scheff, David Crowe etc. etc. etc. have been saying for years:

"AIDS" is not caused by a virus. A virus doe NOT discriminate."

WebGirl said...

And here come the conspiracy theorists...sigh. I guess I asked for this.

No, Manu, viruses don't discriminate based on race or sexual orientation, but they do spread based on the conditions and behaviors associated a particular geographical region and sexual practice. This is not something new. Illnesses spread under certain conditions. Malaria doesn't care about skin color either, but apparently, it's killed millions of Africans as well.

This isn't about gay-bashing. It's not about racism. It's about the World Health Organization and other AIDS-support organizations shamelessly lying to the American people for twenty years for their own purposes. It's about billions of dollars being solicited under false pretenses and then (insult to injury) ultimately going to the wrong places. It's about millions of Africans and millions of homosexuals dying when they didn't have to. And frankly, I'm astounded that no one seems to give a damn.

WG

Manu said...

Conspiracy theories? How about sighing about the stupidity theories such as the one the majority of devotees of viral mania espouse?

THERE IS NO PROOF OF HIV ISOLATION.
THERE IS NO "GOLD STANDARD"-Gold standards have 100% specificity and sensitivity.

I challenge you here to publish a link that leads to answerers to these questions:

1. DO YOU THINK THERE IS A “GOLD STANDARD” FOR HIV INFECTION?

2. IF SO, WHAT IS THIS “GOLD STANDARD” FOR HIV INFECTION?

3. CAN YOU PROVIDE SPECIFIC REFERENCES THAT CONTRADICT THE ABOVE REFERENCES I GAVE THAT ASSERT THAT NO GOLD STANDARD EXISTS??

These are straightforward questions which after 25 years of HIV research should be easy to answer. Can you answer them?

A virus WILL NOT SPREAD LIKE THAT! No matter what you or anyone else says. Period!

Now, on another line, why do you need a virus if you are talking of behavior? If everyone stopped obsessing on sex maybe you will see that there are other factors which may compromise your immune system that are not necessarily sex based.

How do you know that what people died of is AIDS? How do you know that what killed them was not the AZT they were given on top of having compromised immune systems? How do you know? Would you swear to that? Would you?

Why have so many dies who took medication and so many are still alive who refused it?

Why does ALL medication have a "black box"? Do you know what that means?

Now if you REALLY researched those questions you would get some interesting answers and they would be different form the ones you are espousing now.

Right now all you are talking about is the AIDS belief system and all you seem to think happened with this WHO admission is that part of that belief system has now vanished into thin air.

I say it's all a load of tosh, and time will keep chipping away at bits of it till there is nothing left.

AIDS is only a political construct and the virus that supposedly causes it is only in your minds.

Manu said...

PS-

I do agree with you that the WHO has lied to us all for the last 25 years.

Not ALL black and gay people have been happy to accept the "risk group" "victim" card, and there are many many examples of individuals and some organizations who have fought this tooth and nail.

You can visit two examples of what I am saying by going to youtube and searching for "Lee Evans on HIV testing" or visiting ACTUP San Francisco, who have always maintained that this is all political construct, and that the tests are a fraud which signals out gay men and black people.

The problem has been the leaders of these communities who have in many cases made political carreers, vast amounts of money and gained power by selling the lies, that as you say have caused so many cruel and unnecessary deaths. These leaders sold their brothers and sisters out. And what can Lee Evan do when Oprah and Magic are constantly pushing the opposite message? Or what can John Lauritsen do when Elton John is doing the same with gay men?

Now the WHO has jumped ship, or better, has pushed these groups overboard. The fact remains that they LIED. So why should you believe them anymore anymore if they are now admitting to having lied?

This is not conspiracy. This is the stuff of politics. 25 years of it seems to be enough for the WHO and it does not take a great deal of savvy to see that what this really is, is a call for all the top brass to get out. The writing has been on the wall for AIDS for a while now and this is the first major sign of the ship going down.

Just watch it all break up now. it will not take too long after this. Now AIDS activists are on their own.

WebGirl said...

Ok, look Manu, at some point, you're going to have to get your own blog. You're playing by the rules so I'm posting your comments, and I appreciate your passion, but you're pushing a different agenda here.

superfriend said...

Hi all,

You're dumbfounded, awestruck, and shocked that you've been LIED to for 25 years.

Not an accident, not "best intentions gone awry."

But L-I-E-D to.

And the folks who have tried to point this out to you for 20 years in the sciences and in the press have been painted as "denialists."

People who said that Africans needed water, and not poisonous drugs, were called "denialists."

People who said that gay men who committed slow suicide by massive drug use in the gay ghettos, isolated from a society that rejected them, that did not care whether they lived or died, those of us who pointed out the multi-factorial nature of this brand name called "Aids", we were called "denialists."

And now the mainstream wants to come along and say -

"NO, YOU WEREN"T ALL AT RISK. HA ha ha."

"HA! Just a little 25 year mistake we made!"

Let me tell you something - if you're willing to go along with their charade, and let them back out of this without any accountablity for terrorizing nations of people about sex causing death,

then you are in 'denial.'

Wake up and smell the massive pile of BS that you've been living in, when you believed what the health authorities told you about Aids.

Go look up "hiv testing" "false positives" "Bangui definition" "robert gallo" "aids debate", and you can begin to unravel the back end of what you're seeing at the very top of the WHO.

Ga'bless, and good luck.

superfriend said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
superfriend said...

PS: Webgirl:

"Shame on the WHO and shame on the American media that promoted this crap."

You got it. I'm incensed. I'm livid, I'm teary-eyed over it, and I've been fighting this thing for years now.

It is THE outrage of a lifetime, I can think of no bigger lie. Please keep writing about it, and don't call something "conspiracy theories" because the people who LIED to US told you to call it "conspiracy!"

Get it? That's their line. You go read and research, and you see what you can find.

:)

superfriend said...

Ps webgirl,

if you're still believing what they say about Africa, then tell me why they're admitting that they invented the numbers there???

With one hand, the WHO is admitting that american 'aids' was a game and a lie,

and with the other, UNAids is admitting that African Aids was..

a game and a lie!!

Here's from the CFD (a NGO in Africa):
UNAIDS myths on AIDS pandemic costing billions – new report
May 20, 2008
http://www.fightingdiseases.org/main/pr.php?pr_id=27


Here's from the British Medical Journal:

The Writing is on the Wall for UNAIDS:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/336/7652/1072

Why? Because they invented the numbers, called every disease and every bit of thirst and hunger and poverty "AIDS!"

Do you know what that buys? 50 billion dollar donations - to who?

To the leaders of corrupt countries, who DO NOT GIVE IT TO THEIR PEOPLE. WHO DO NOT FEED THEIR PEOPLE. WHO WAGE AND FUND SMALL WARS AND KEEP THEIR COUNTRIES UNSTABLE.

Sorry to be so inflamed, but it breaks my heart, because it's been going on for 20 years with rockstar support, and anybody who said "NO! What about food and water and basic needs, and never mind you're make-believe sex-death virus," was kicked out of the conversation.

Okay, that's it for now. You go be outraged, and don't stop reading and learning, and DO NOT LET THEM WALK AWAY FROM THIS WITH JUST A SORRY EXCUSE FOR AN APOLOGY, because that's what they're selling you right now.

abandoning eden said...

manu- the reason aids spreads much more rapidly among homosexuals, is that anal sex is the most efficient (sexual) way of spreading aids, and also that many gay people don't use condoms, cause there is no risk of pregnancy.

vaginal fluids actually offer some protection against the aids virus, so unless you have vaginal sex repeatedly with no condoms with someone with AIDS, you have a very small chance of getting it (like around 1% per time you have unprotected sex with someone who has it).

Also, tears or open sores in the anus of vagina make it much easier to for the virus to enter the bloodstream- which is why people who already have STIs like herpes (and therefore are more likely to have open sores) are more likely to contract it. Anal sex is more likely to tear the anal tissues, which increases the odds of infection.

There is no conspiracy here, it's simple biology.

Manu said...

You did not post my last comment so you will probably censor this one too, but here it is just the same:

"At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood."
Abbott Laboratories, Diagnostic Division.

I guess that is "simple biology" too?

This obsession with vaginae and anuses is most unhealthy. It really has made you all blind.

Can you not see that as there is no means of diagnosis, there is only a belief system?

Can you not see that is what the WHO are dismantling?

Can you not see that the biggest problem here are people like you who believe and defend the indefensible?

This element you express here along with the the WHO and certain political quarters gave us AIDS.

The WHO have jumped ship on this one. You had better demand an explanation from them as to how or why they have dome this. Unless you think that the threat of heterosexual AIDS really has evaporated into thin air.

Now that would be a brand new kind of biology...

It's sad to see how you have all been brainwashed. It's really sad to see how you just try and hide behind accusations of conspiracies and label others who only try and make you see that you have all been misled.

WebGirl said...

Manu, I posted ALL your comments.

Manu said...

I told you they were going to all jump ship.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/12/aids.health

Even i did not think they would all do it so quick.

Keep writing on this. They can't all just walk away from it.

superfriend said...

Thank you webgirl for letting the conversation go on. And please keep it going on, and don't buy sad and sorry strange excuses about how africans do it being different from europeans or americans. They don't have a las vegas in soweto, or all the california state colleges where kids boink each other silly, in Kampala, so don't buy the 'different sex' line. Not without proof. because it's a lie to save their skins at this point.

thank you webgirl for keeping it open, and for posting manu's posts, because he knows this stuff from the inside out. If you go read his blog, you'll see what he means.

props webgirl, lotsa love to ya.