Threat of World Aids Pandemic Among Heterosexuals Is Over, Report Admits
Jeremy Laurance, Independent (London), June 8, 2008
| More news stories on Africa |
|---|
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.
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.
Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. 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.
Dr De Cock said: “It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalised epidemic in Asia—China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn’t look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas.”
In 2006, the Global Fund for HIV, Malaria and Tuberculosis, which provides 20 per cent of all funding for Aids, warned that Russia was on the cusp of a catastrophe. An estimated 1 per cent of the population was infected, mainly through injecting drug use, the same level of infection as in South Africa in 1991 where the prevalence of the infection has since risen to 25 per cent.
Dr De Cock said: “I think it is unlikely there will be extensive heterosexual spread in Russia. But clearly there will be some spread.”
Aids still kills more adults than all wars and conflicts combined, and is vastly bigger than current efforts to address it. A joint WHO/UN Aids report published this month showed that nearly three million people are now receiving anti-retroviral drugs in the developing world, but this is less than a third of the estimated 9.7 million people who need them. In all there were 33 million people living with HIV in 2007, 2.5 million people became newly infected and 2.1 million died of Aids.
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.
Dr De Cock labelled these the “four malignant arguments” undermining support for the global campaign against Aids, which still faced formidable challenges, despite the receding threat of a generalised epidemic beyond Africa.
Any revision of the threat was liable to be seized on by those who rejected HIV as the cause of the disease, or who used the disease as a weapon to stigmatise high risk groups, he said.
“Aids still remains the leading infectious disease challenge in public health. It is an acute infection but a chronic disease. It is for the very, very long haul. People are backing off, saying it is taking care of itself. It is not.”
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.
There were “elements of truth” in the criticism, Dr De Cock said. “You will not do much about Aids in London by spending the funds in schools. You need to go where transmission is occurring. It is true that countries have not always been good at that.”
But he rejected an argument put in The New York Times that only $30m (£15m) had been spent on safe water projects, far less than on Aids, despite knowledge of the risks that contaminated water pose.
“It sounds a good argument. But where is the scandal? That less than a third of Aids patients are being treated—or that we have never resolved the safe water scandal?”
One of the danger areas for the Aids strategy was among men who had sex with men. He said: ” We face a bit of a crisis [in this area]. In the industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is not declining and in some places has increased.
“In the developing world, it has been neglected. We have only recently started looking for it and when we look, we find it. And when we examine HIV rates we find they are high.
“It is astonishing how badly we have done with men who have sex with men. It is something that is going to have to be discussed much more rigorously.”
The biggest puzzle was what had caused heterosexual spread of the disease in sub-Saharan Africa—with infection rates exceeding 40 per cent of adults in Swaziland, the worst-affected country—but nowhere else.
“It is the question we are asked most often—why is the situation so bad in sub-Saharan Africa? It is a combination of factors—more commercial sex workers, more ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases, a young population and concurrent sexual partnerships.”
“Sexual behaviour is obviously important but it doesn’t seem to explain [all] the differences between populations. Even if the total number of sexual partners [in sub-Saharan Africa] is no greater than in the UK, there seems to be a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships creating sexual networks that, from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection.”
Low rates of circumcision, which is protective, and high rates of genital herpes, which causes ulcers on the genitals through which the virus can enter the body, also contributed to Africa’s heterosexual epidemic.
But the factors driving HIV were still not fully understood, he said.
“The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?”
(Posted on June 9, 2008)
Comments
Like I have said before, the UN has admitted that some of the AIDS infection rates in countries where they seem high aren’t really that high — the UN was fudging them upward to hustle money.
Also, I couldn’t help but notice the rather ironic name of the doctor cited in this article.
Posted by Question Diversity at 6:36 PM on June 9
“In the US, the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota…”
Would this have anything to do with the obvious differences between the types of men who live in North Dakota and those who live in Washington DC?
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 6:55 PM on June 9
“The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?”
Hello!! DC is full of blacks, and North Dakota is full of Norwegians!! Duhh!Get a clue!
Posted by at 7:04 PM on June 9
“The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?”
WOW what a mystery. Can you believe that these brilliant scientist can’t figure this out? Or is it that they are afraid to speak the truth? Looks to me like drug users, gay men and black men both in Africa and throughout the world have behavioral patterns that expose them and anyone stupid enough to have sex with them to greatly higher risks of HIV infection.
No mystery, it just doesn’t fit the approved liberal group delusion. Guys it doesn’t matter how good looking the woman is if she dates or has dated black men you better kick her to the curb before you catch something more than stupidity from her.
Posted by Enough at 7:11 PM on June 9
“The biggest puzzle was what had caused heterosexual spread of the disease in sub-Saharan Africa—with infection rates exceeding 40 per cent of adults in Swaziland, the worst-affected country—but nowhere else.”
… and then:
“the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota”
Hmmm… what do sub-saharan Africa and Washington D.C. have in common? Well, I haven’t the foggiest idea! Good thing they’ve got top-notch scientists and billions of dollars to figure it out!
Posted by jewamongyou at 7:19 PM on June 9
“The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?”
Because DC is full of black people, and North Dakota is essentially lilly White.
Posted by Teutonicus at 7:26 PM on June 9
Why would an “epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease” deliberately lie about the racial difference between black DC and white N. Dakota?
We shouldn’t give the liars at the WHO another damn dime.
Posted by at 7:27 PM on June 9
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…………Yes I believe it was the Bible which could be held responsible for limiting an Aids epidemic among Heterosexuals.
Posted by Tony Soprano. at 7:43 PM on June 9
Lets see, the difference in the population of blacks in North Dakota and D.C. would be?
Posted by Billy at 7:52 PM on June 9
But only because their plan to make miscegenation the rule instead of the exception, has failed.
Despite 20 years of nonstop, intense propaganda, the biological instinct against it remains intact for the vast majority of normal, non drug using people.
AIDS remains, overwhelmingly, an issue for black people. Although there are other groups that “engage in high risk behavior”, they are tiny compared to the african american population. Even though they make up the lions share of disease carriers, especially among the 30% or so of black men who inevitably go to prison, it is still taboo to mention that AIDS is a black issue far more than it ever was a gay issue or even an intravenous drug user issue.
And nobody but nobody ever mentions, EVER, the percentage of white AIDS victims that got it because they have sex with blacks. Nor the fact that the disease has a prevalence close to zero, for those whites who would never, ever consider sex with a black person.
Posted by at 7:54 PM on June 9
Epidemiologist asks: Why Africa and nowhere else?
Global Institutional Racism!
Whatever else could it possibly be?
Hmmmm….. Wait, it’s coming to me…. Nope.
Definately Global Institutional Racism!
Posted by (formerly) James from NOLA at 8:16 PM on June 9
“The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US, the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate.
That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?”
Is Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist just being flip/sardonic or just plain dumb!
South Dakota is almost all White, White Women, White Men, cowboys, real workers, real men, tough men…not really made for homosexuals.
Washington D. C. is known as a magnet for White homosexual men. Just look at Congress, the Supreme Court, White House
staff, “Think Tanks” (liberal and conservative), the federal government in general and especially the striped pants boys of the State Department.
Add this to the blacks/hispanics (about 75%), whose culture and genetic disposition seems to dictate that I’m no “homo”, but there are no women around tonight so we guys will do each other. (All the White Men I associate with would rather do without if there are no women available.)
Add to this, the large, totally homosexual black and hispanic D.C. population and Dr. De Cock, you have your answer!
Posted by Sissy White at 8:37 PM on June 9
“The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?”
OK, I was going to make a comment but I will let this statement stand by itself. How can otherwise educated people be so completely blind?
Posted by Economist at 8:46 PM on June 9
This article is more proof of Peter Duesberg’s assertion that AIDS is a hoax, please see: http://duesberg.com/
There are about fifty articles (scholarly, not tabloid) on Duesberg’s website, many addressing the AIDS hoax in America and many explaining why the so-called AIDS epidemic in Africa is nothing but a politically-inspired renamimg of diseases such as TB and malnutrition as being this thing called AIDS. It’s all ridiculous as a matter of science, and it is very harmful to the African cause, it makes them give up hope to be told they have an incurable, terminal disease rather than something easily dealt with (if they could afford the medicines)such as TB. The truth is, according to Duesberg’s site, that misconceptions about HIV and AIDS are destroying Africa. I don’t care very urgently about Africa, an overwhelmingly racist anti-white horrorshow (I have other countries to worry about, mostly the one I live in, the USA), but I have an honest revulsion to lies wherever promulgated, so I hate the AIDS industry for re-enslaving Africans into a phony mindset, but after all is said and done I am not surprised by this, because even (supposedly) well-educated Americans believe there is such a thing as AIDS when in fact it is a complete myth—the AIDS diagnosis is what some people have called the greatest medical blunder in history. Of course, that may not be true because history continues to unfold and there are always bigger blunders coming down the pike! But the nonsense about AIDS is quite a monstrosity among blunders, all things considered!
Posted by John Dougherty at 9:28 PM on June 9
Because highly sexualized Africans have a lot of homosexual relations.
Posted by at 9:29 PM on June 9
I say this not to be cruel, but I believe it is time that Africans and African Americans confront the extremely high amount of “Downlow” homosexuality in their communities.
If gay black males come to grips with who they are sexually, they will stop the spread of the virus to their womenfolk, which would be a blessing for their culture.
Posted by John at 10:49 PM on June 9
John Dougherty:
The South African president, Thabo Mbeki, apparently read the same internet articles about HIV and AIDS that you do, and it shaped the SA government policy. That is, it denies the link between the two, and recommends eating beetroot to cure AIDS. This has not measurably decreased the popularity of the folklore cure, namely, raping babies.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the knowledge to make the call myself, and I must rely on hearsay evidence (as do you). This tells me that there is a simple blood test that can detect HIV antibodies; that infection with HIV correlates with certain types of behaviour; that it also correlates with diagnoses of AIDS, which in turn correlate with death from, as you say, other causes which are often otherwise treatable.
Your contention that AIDS is simply malnutrition repackaged, doesn’t gybe with high-profile cases like Rock Hudson and Liberace; cases which are entirely consistent with the HIV theory.
Reports (again, hearsay) estimate up to 1000 people die daily in South Africa from AIDS. Many of these victims are children who were congenitally infected by their mothers. The one thing they all have in common is a positive HIV test.
Good enough for me, at least till I hear a better theory.
Posted by AnalogMan at 2:00 AM on June 10
And nobody but nobody ever mentions, EVER, the percentage of white AIDS victims that got it because they have sex with blacks. Nor the fact that the disease has a prevalence close to zero, for those whites who would never, ever consider sex with a black person.
Posted by at 7:54 PM on June 9
————————————————————————————————-
Yes, my (ex) girlfriend just fumed when I mentioned that blacks have an enormously higher STD rate than whites. The very subject offended her. Even when educated liberals KNOW the truth about racial disparities, they deny them, or more often, refuse to discuss them. I don’t think that there has ever been a more gagged society than ours. Never before has frank observation and common sense been more taboo!
Posted by at 2:25 AM on June 10
even (supposedly) well-educated Americans believe there is such a thing as AIDS when in fact it is a complete myth—the AIDS diagnosis is what some people have called the greatest medical blunder in history. Of course, that may not be true because history continues to unfold and there are always bigger blunders coming down the pike! But the nonsense about AIDS is quite a monstrosity among blunders, all things considered!
Posted by John Dougherty at 9:28 PM on June 9
————————————————————————————————————————
John, you’re nuts. AIDS is real, and HIV is the virus that sets it off. Get a clue.
Posted by at 2:30 AM on June 10
John Dougherty, I’ve followed the HIV-AIDS debate for many years. The link is not nearly as “ridiculous” as you would have it. I’m not completely decided one way or another, but I lean (heavily, I think) towards the conventional case.
Posted by Michael T at 2:45 AM on June 10
We should commission de Cock to conduct a study on the comparative crime rates between the Dakotas and Washington, DC. Doubtless he could spotlight another of the strange anomalies that beset American society and the need for more federal funding to address these puzzling and, thus far, seemingly intractable problems.
Posted by john at 4:43 AM on June 10
There was never a “global heterosexual pandemic”. That was invented so as to scare normal people into paying money so that homos and drug users would get special privileges.
“But the factors driving HIV were still not fully understood, he said.” This could be said only by someone who is deliberately denying the obvious truth that is known to everyone who is still breathing.
Posted by at 6:10 AM on June 10
Of the few white women I know of with AIDS, all have been “down” with the brothers. These dumb brain-washed women don’t learn until it’s too late.
Posted by Sardonicus at 7:45 AM on June 10
Epidemiologist asks: Why Africa and nowhere else?
Ans: 1 PROMISCUITY, sex with multiple partners
2 Stupidity-driven refusal to wear condoms or have sex with only one partner.
Any questions?
Posted by Fed Up at 10:02 AM on June 10
“Yes, my (ex) girlfriend just fumed when I mentioned that blacks have an enormously higher STD rate than whites. “
So, would it be “RACIST” if the CDC had a campaign in Black high schools that stated half of all black teens had STDs? Would that be a GOOD racism because you are trying to reduce STDS, or a BAD racism because you are pointing out a negative attribute that should be ignored?
Posted by at 10:22 AM on June 10
The CIA once made the following predictions: It claimed that given the purported AIDS epidemic the South African population in 2007 would be 44-45 million. It also claimed that without the AIDS epidemic the population would be 49 million. Well South Africa’s population in 2007 was slightly less than 49 million—but well within the statistical error range.
So that’s the proof that the AIDS—Africa hypothesis is mainly hype—all meant to suck in billions of good money for nonsensical research and silly conferences.
Posted by OCCAM at 10:49 AM on June 10
I never believed for a second that average people like me were ever in much danger of contracting AIDs. It seemed fishy to me how everyone was trying to extract money for this ‘minor’ disease. I got better places to put my money than being duped into giving my hard work money. Africa is another story, when have we ever been able to solve anything in Africa? Let them handle it the way they’ve been doing it for thousands of years. Breed like crazy and let the ill die off.
High risk groups need to help themselves just as I donate to cancer, heart disease, and other common disease research because most people are going to die of these kinds of diseases not AIDs.
Posted by realist at 10:57 AM on June 10
The myth of heterosexual AIDS outside of Africa was merely one element of the gay lobby to make AIDS more acceptable(not a gay disease) and to funnel more public money into AIDS research rather than to much more important diseases affecting the general population. Thus far, they have been quite successful.
Posted by at 10:58 AM on June 10
Once again we learn all about ‘new infection rates’ etc. Around 600,000 Americans have actually died of AIDS. Why do we never, ever, learn the race of those who have died from it?
Posted by Just another AmRener at 11:08 AM on June 10
Since decades ago when the total number of AIDS cases in NYC was 24, an “ignore the little man behind the curtain” mentality has controlled the AIDS debate. Gay activists needed it to be viewed a problem for society as a whole and not of just one cohort of society. If it could not be viewed as a potential epidemic facing the general public, then billions of dollars wouldn’t be spent by government. While he was in office, Clinton’s Surgeon General predicted that 125,000,000 Americans would die of AIDS. This generated enormous funding.
Distortion of language and re-defining of terms has clouded the issue. AIDS, by definition, is NOT a disease. AIDS is a Syndrome. SIDS is a syndrome, not a disease. Vaccines are created for specific diseases and not syndromes. The job of a vaccine is to create antibodies to the infectious agent. The main tests for AIDS verify the existence of antibodies, not live virus. This is one reason for the hypothesis that HIV can lie dormant for years and years because if someone has antibodies but not live virus then one has been “vaccinated”, much like getting and recovering from a specific type of Flu which you won’t get again.
Examine the groups which the article discusses and one sees that they are the groups which suffer disproportionately higher disease rates than the general population. Gays account for a higher number of STD’s than their percentage of the population as do intravenious drug users and sex workers. Repeated cases
of infectious diseases do great damage to the immune system which is less and less able to handle further infections.
The case of Africa is different. In reality, Africa is the only place where AIDS, by its definition, can be found. It is actually dealt with as a Syndrome although this is not admitted in public. This is because years ago the WHO, along with other groups, created the Bangui definition of AIDS. This stated that AIDS could be diagnosed by symptoms alone. No Western Blot or ELISA test was necessary to establish the presence of antibodies. It should come as no surprise that the symptoms mirrored those of the major diseases afflicting the African continent - Dengue Fever, Malaria, TB, pneumonia and the like.
Articles dealing with AIDS consistantly ignore, or give scant weight, to the fact that the number of cases is an estimate drawn from relatively small samples and then extrapolated to whole continents. Since predictions of a worldwide pandemic have failed to materialize, international groups have been forced to scale back on the estimates. It has always been difficult for these proponents of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis to face the fact that in the West, where actual testing happens, the spread of AIDS has not followed predictions but remained in the already known high risk groups.
Ideology, not science, has cost many lives.
Posted by George at 11:20 AM on June 10
Yes, my (ex) girlfriend just fumed when I mentioned that blacks have an enormously higher STD rate than whites. The very subject offended her. ]
——-
Ha ha yeah the same thing happens to me on a weekly basis as my girlfriend works for a public health clinic. She buys hook line and sinker the whole lie that AIDS affects all peoples of all races, argument. If a few white heterosexuals have AIDS then it affects all races equally according to the accepted dogma.
My girlfriend is always chastizing me for having been slightly sexually reckless in college. When I tried to explain her the odds of contracting AIDS from occassional heterosexual sex, when both partners are middle class whites with no history of sleeping with blacks I nearly started world war three.
Posted by at 12:34 PM on June 10
The biggest puzzle was what had caused heterosexual spread of the disease in sub-Saharan Africa—with infection rates exceeding 40 per cent of adults in Swaziland, the worst-affected country—but nowhere else.
Not quite nowhere else - the country with the highest infection rates in the Americas just happens to be Haiti. Perhaps not quite as high as some of the southern African nations, but way up there nonetheless. Perhaps Dr. De Cock can conduct an in-depth study to inform us of what, if anything, might be the link between Haiti and sub-Saharan Africa. I sure can’t think of any similarities at the moment…
Posted by at 12:51 PM on June 10
Give Dr. De Cock a break (and with a name like that, surely he deserves one). His pointed question “How do you explain such differences?” is simply how many of our race have learned to communicate the facts, without stating the facts.
Posted by at 1:36 PM on June 10
Analogman:
Thanks for responding but I wish you would read the many articles on the Duesberg site I mentioned, that prove Rock Hudson and Liberace died the from drug abuse that is prevalent among US homosexuals (poppers, coke, meth)that suppress the immune system and lead to pneumonia, other infections, complications, etc that actually kill them. HIV is a dormant ‘passenger virus’ that is widespread in the world, and it is not true, as you imply, that every AIDS victim in Africa has a positive HIV test. Here is one small selection from one of many articles that disproves the HIV-AIDS diagnosis in the case of Africa:
“Does the African experience of AIDS help our understanding of AIDS in the West ? One who thinks it does is molecular biologist Professor Peter Duesberg. He has argued for six years that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. In leading science journals he develops his view that HIV is no more than a passenger or hitchhiker that’s around, like other bugs, when people are at risk - a bug that’s dormant rather than fatal. And he points to one anomaly in particular in Africa’s statistics that he believes supports his theory - more than two thousand documented cases of AIDS without HIV.
Many of these cases come from Dr. Kevin de Cock’s studies in Abidjan’a three main hospitals. There over one third of cases NOT qualifying as AIDS under the Bangui definition of symptoms were HIV positive and one third of cases which DID qualify as AIDS were HIV negative. How does Dr. de Cock explain the cases in his study which have been diagnosed as AIDS cases but when tested have been found not to have HIV ?”
http://www.duesberg.com/media/jsafrica.html
Please read the literature—AIDS is another myth, like global warming, the gay gene, etc., that is created for political reasons to justify misbehavior, obscure truth, or achieve political dominance.
And please don’t try to link me to Thabo Mbeki—a mass murderer and criminal persecutor of whites in South Africa—or the baby-rape practice, which is also despicable like Mbeki and which is another hallmark of benighted Africa and the tragedy of the destruction of South Africa’s white culture.
But your belief that there is such thing as a valid diagnosis of something called AIDS is false—there is no such thing as AIDS, that which is diagnosed as AIDS is always something else.
Scientists don’t have special thinking privileges that are unavailable to you or me, we all have the ability to make scientific observations and analysis, as long as we aim for the truth, and we all have an obligation to seek the truth, don’t you think?
Thanks again
Posted by John Dougherty at 3:22 PM on June 10
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.
This is for the obvious reason that HIV is not very readily transmitted from male to female through heterosexual contact (especially if the male is circumcised), which is for obvious reasons itself. If all heterosexuals quit using condoms and started sleeping around tomorrow, a few females would probably be infected from switch hitting or I.V. drug using males, but since they couldn’t infect anyone else, it wouldn’t spread very far.
Of course, the Cultural Marxists who control the medical establishment wanted badly for it to be otherwise, so that homosexuality doesn’t appear abnormal.
As far as heterosexual AIDS in Africa is concerned, I’ll bet dollars to donuts that most of the “heterosexual” men who are infected were infected through lied-about homosexual behavior.
Posted by qwerty at 10:33 PM on June 10
“…Just another AmRener at 11:08 AM on June 10 - Once again we learn all about ‘new infection rates’ etc. Around 600,000 Americans have actually died of AIDS…”
Do you know that more Americans die from cancer and heart disease EVERY SINGLE YEAR, than have died from AIDS in all the years that this so-called disease has been in existence?
Are Aids victims more important than victims of other diseases? How come these other diseases, do not get as much attention as AIDS?
Posted by VonWagner at 9:14 AM on June 11
“The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US, the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate.
That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?”….
South (I think he means NORTH) Dakota is almost all White, White Women, White Men, cowboys, real workers, real men, tough men…not really made for homosexuals.” (end quote)
Umm, well, no. A recent ‘Arts’ type in No. Dak. ‘came out of the closet,’ divorced his wife of 20+ years, and is now with his boyfriend, and yet STILL continues blithely to teach at a Lutheran College in NoDak. The ‘flame factor’ of the ‘boys’ he has interactions with, (both at the college and the ‘performing arts organization’ he directs/runs) are proportionately “higher
on the gay scale” than your average Dakota boy.
ALL of this is directly as a result of the ELCA (the main/parent denominational body of this college and state) in NOT sanctioning biblical morality, firing this man, and disabusing the whole denomination of the ‘Matthew Shepherd as saint’ mantra, which the homosex community continues to give, (disinformatia style) even in a state made up of “…all White, White Women, White Men, cowboys, real workers, real men, tough men….”
Of course, it is only coincidental that the main ‘social service agency’ in the Upper Midwest (Lutheran Social Service) that is ALSO in the forefront of the news, in bringing in Muslims, SE Asians, and other non-white, non-Christian types into this area, is the organic arm of the aforementioned Lutheran Synod…that just recently joined the Episcopal Church in ‘sharing orders’ (and, one will assume, eventually, sodomite Bishops as well).
The Nut doesn’t fall too far from the tree….
And godly men and women who teach just as well, or better, are ‘passed over’ for ‘diversity reasons.’
Yeah, that makes us ALL ‘happy’…. or is that ‘gay’?
Posted by AlmostMusicPhD at 9:24 AM on June 11
“…AnalogMan at 2:00 AM on June - Unfortunately, I don’t have the knowledge to make the call, and I must rely on hearsay evidence (as do you). This tells me that there is a simple blood test that can detect HIV antibodies; that infection with HIV correlates with certain types of behaviour; that it also correlates with diagnoses of AIDS, which in turn correlate with death from, as you say, other causes which are often otherwise treatable…”
Are you aware that HIV statistics in Africa, are not based on actual blood tests for the virus? HIV statistics are simply estimates that are made by UN bureaucrats working for WHO and UNAIDS.
But in America, a HIV diagnosis is arrived at by actual testing of blood samples, using two different HIV tests - the ELISA and the Western Blot test. The statistics in Africa can only be taken seriously, if they are arrived at using the same HIV testing procedures that are used in the US.
Do you seriously believe that Swaziland has 40 percent of its population infected by HIV, as the UN claims? Do you seriously believe that it is biologically or statistically possible, for any nation to have HIV infection rates that are 40 times higher than those of the already very promiscuous black Americans?
Posted by VonWagner at 9:43 AM on June 11
AIDS is not a hoax, but in Africa, TB piggybacks on it. Africans are already much more vulnerable to TB than whites and Asians, and with a damaged immune system, TB takes hold even more quickly.
Those who believe HIV/AIDS is a hoax are cordially invited to sleep around. Like winning the lottery, you can improve your chances by purchasing more tickets.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 10:42 AM on June 11
Erratum: I meant to say in the above post that HIV is not readily transmitted from female to male through sexual intercourse.
Posted by qwerty at 10:53 AM on June 11
There never was a heterosexual AIDS epidemic, threat of one or even many cases. In San FRancisco, epi center of the epidemic, there have been less than 100 cases of non prostitute women diagnosed with AIDS or HIV. In every case, she had sex with a bisexual man who got his AIDS during a homosexual episode.
The an*us is part of the gastro intestinual system. The lining is only one cell thick. Some of the cells are “receptor” cells. These cells have little hooks that grab on to whatever is going through the gastro intestinal system. That is why an*l sex causes aids and numerous other diseases.
The va***a is part of the reproductive system. It’s lining is 25 cells thick. The layers are like a very tough fan belt. Some layers are horisontal, some vertical and some diagonal.
It is designed to withstand a lot of wear and tear, like many childbirths.
That is why there no hetrosexual aids
Posted by at 3:32 PM on June 11
Thanks to the poster above (Mr. Dougherty?) who did what I meant to do—notify or inform us that AIDS orthodoxy has been challenged by serious people. I recall Duesberg’s assertions from probably ten years ago, and the predictable reaction. To the ‘anti-skeptics’ I would point out one enormous qualification of his: he is either a Nobel Prize nominee or actual recipient in one of the life sciences [biology, medicine, or something related].
Think about that. I’d say that’s one guy who can go toe to toe with any AIDS “expert”—or shill—in the world. And he’s stuck to his guns for a decade.
And the controversy is real. Careers—such as that of ex-CDC director Robert Gallo—have been built on the conventional wisdom: a virus discovered in the early 80’s, apparently originating in Africa, causes catastrophic breakdown of the human immune system, and it’s virtually unstoppable—we’re “all at risk”. You and I—typically “boring” melanin-challenged law-abiding polite non-parasitical rubes who actually work for a living—are in the same boat with a bunch of ‘vibrant’ folks whose personal practices we’d really, really prefer not to think about. We’re all the same, before this new plague! And don’t you dare say differently!
Well, some people have dared to say differently, such as Duesberg—and the reaction is outrage and condemnation. This is exactly why I want to point out an enormously significant quote from this article:
“Any revision of the threat was liable to be seized on by those who *rejected HIV as the cause of the disease* [emphasis added], or who used the disease as a weapon to stigmatise high risk groups, he said.”
There’s an on-going war among the intelligentsia about this ‘plague’, and this is a simple acknowledgment of it. This war is, of course, concealed from us ‘rubes’; we’re supposed to accept the conventional wisdom.
Sound familiar? Does it remind you, perhaps, of other ‘wisdom’ that we’re just supposed to accept, as ‘decent people’?—especially if you’re a regular visitor to this site? (Hint: James Watson.)
Know your enemies. There are plenty of them.
Posted by Oops, the brainwashing wore off... at 6:51 PM on June 11
John Douherty, Von Wagner:
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that every AIDS case in Africa is diagnosed by a blood test. I was speaking specifically of South Africa, which had a first-world-standard medical system up to the fall of civilization in 1994, parts of which still survive.
Ante-natal clinics test patients for HIV and report infection rates varying by region from 29% to 39%. A recent report stated that the South African Defence Farce has an infection rate of 35%. A white Defence Farce doctor made himself unpopular by adding that, among personnel admitted to military hospitals, the rate was actually 60%. (Sorry, I can’t bring myself to call them “soldiers”. This sorry outfit is an amalgam of the once proud SA Defence Force and the various rag-tag terrorist gangs who assumed whatever military rank they chose.)
So, yes, I can quite easily believe infection rates of 40% are statistically and biologically possible. After all, even in America, the rate in Washington DC is 100 times that in North Dakota.
In any event, as far as Africa in general is concerned, I can
easily accept that wrong diagnoses occur, which only makes me more suspicious of theories based on medical data from Africa. Looking only at the American experience, are not all AIDS diagnoses there supported by a positive HIV test?
I have no personal stake in this argument, other than a (perhaps understandable) wistful hope that the Africans really are killing themselves by the millions through their uncontrollable rutting. And perhaps a disinclination to associate myself with the position taken by our beloved President Mbeki. As I said before, all the information I have is filtered throught the media. But anecdotal evidence such as white women being infected with HIV after being raped by blacks, and subsequently developing AIDS, does incline me to believe the conventional theory.
Posted by AnalogMan at 7:36 AM on June 12
To AnalogMan, Von Wagner, and everyone else above,
This is a great discussion and it makes me glad that Amren exists, thank you for letting me post here!
So as not to keep glomming Mr. Taylor’s server space repeating info that is available elsewhere, please just let me say that all the questions and objections stated above to Duesberg’s conclusions are addressed and refuted in his website. Amren rules!
Posted by John Dougherty at 10:58 PM on June 12