by Liam Scheff - gnn.tv
12th June, 2008
It is official: AIDS is not explicable by sexual
transmission, at least not outside of Sub-Saharan Africans,
gay men, intravenous drug users and prostitutes. For the
rest of us, 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," Garena Shell Hack 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(WHO): "[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
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 countriesâ€¦I would like to emphasize
another alarming concern â€“ 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 Joomla Templates 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).
The 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% â€“ overnight. UNICEFâ€™s
Swaziland representative, Dr. Alan Brody, told the press
â€śThe problems is that all the sero-surveillance data came
from pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics
was based on that.â€ť (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 wonâ€™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 â€“ a low-prevalence
population â€“ 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
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
"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 upâ€¦ 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-upâ€¦"
"We observed no seroconversions after
entry into the study [nobody became HIV positive]â€¦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.
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.
- For the reprehensibly curious, I’ve linked my
2003 exploration of the topic of AIDS causes, numbers,
drugs and tests. [Here]