AIDS: An Ensuing Controversy - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-13-2003, 11:11 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:19 PM
AIDS: An Ensuing Controversy

I got a hold of an interesting article, one which I will summarize briefly. Don't necessarily take it as the gospel truth; even I don't know quite what to think about it. I'm posting this only to provoke a serious discussion.

There is a minority of scientists who challenge the prevalent theory that HIV causes AIDS. These scientists have existed since the early 1980s, having never believed the HIV / AIDS connection theory, crafted by U.S. government cancer virologist, Richard Gallo. This theory, summed up, says that the retrovirus, HIV, causes AIDS by systematically attacking and destroying the human immune system. Death results from opportunistic infections that result from not having an immune system.

However, some equally prominent researchers--Dr. Peter Duesberg, a chemist and retroviral expert who discovered the oncogene (cancer gene) and isolated the retroviral genome in 1970; Dr. David Rasnick, a protease specialist and a 20-year AIDS researcher; and Dr. Rodney Richards, a chemist who designed the first HIV tests from Gallo's HIV cell line--have some widely differing and highly controversial opinions to the contrary.

Here is a summary of their opinions--which I must reemphasize, are not necessarily my own:

--Retroviruses, of which HIV is part of, are not toxic to cells. In 50 years of research, no retrovirus has ever been shown to kill cells or cause disease, except under special laboratory conditions. Retroviruses are RNA strands that can be passed between mother and child, but are not sexually transmitted, no matter how many lab animals mated. Babies, however, have the same retroviruses as their mothers. Retroviruses are simply naturally occurring, innocuous viruses that are in everyone.

--HIV has never been found in human blood; only an enzyme called "reverse transcriptase." While it is a sign of possible retroviral activity, it is also found in many other microbes, cellular components, and processes, including umbilical cells and forced replication in laboratory environments. It was under a forced replication environment that "reverse transcriptase" was associated with HIV and AIDS, but no virus was found.

--Gallo used a T-cell line to grow HIV--despite belief that HIV is supposed to kill T-cells. These cell lines are nicknamed "immortal cell lines," because HIV never kills them. To date, no researcher has demonstrated how HIV kills T-cells.

--The FDA has never approved a test for HIV detection, despite the existence of several to diagnose the disease. However, medical literature lists at least 60 different conditions that can register positive on the HIV-test, including candidas (naturally-occurring fungi in the human body), arthritis, parasites, malaria, liver conditions, alcoholism, drug abuse, flue, herpes, syphilis, other STDs and pregnancy. Different races have differently occurring antibodies, with blacks having a nine times greater chance of testing positive than whites and a 33% greater chance than Asians.

--AIDS is diagnosed if you have an AIDS-indicator disease like salmonella, tuberculosis, pneumonia, herpes, or a yeast infection, and you test HIV positive. You are then treated with AIDS drugs. If you have these diseases and test negative, you are treated with drugs to treat the specific diseases.

--In 1993, the CDC expanded the AIDS definition to include people who are not sick at all and have a one time T-cell count of less than 200. By 1997, 2/3 of all AIDS cases were in otherwise healthy people.

--AIDS in Africa is caused by rampantly poor living conditions. Fifty percent of Africans have no sewage systems, and their drinking water mixes with animal and human waste. Tuberculosis and malaria are rampant, with the symptoms being diarrhea and weight loss--the same criteria to diagnose AIDS.

--AIDS drugs are the cause of death of many patients. 94% of AIDS-related deaths in the U.S. have occurred after the introduction of AZT and the #1 cause of death for AIDS patients, according to the University of Pittsburgh, is liver failure, a side effect of the new protease inhibitors. The rest die, due to their "opportunistic infections" not being treated.

--In 1994, Gallo quietly announced that the major AIDS defining illness in gay men--the skin cancer, Kaposi's Sarcoma--was not caused by HIV, but was likely caused by amyl nitrate "poppers," a popular and legal drug used as a muscle relaxant during anal sex. (Most interestingly, in the last year or two, poppers have been suspected to be connected to AIDS under the theory that it suppresses the immune system, leaving one open to sexual transmission of HIV infection.) Gallo also amended his AIDS beliefs that it is not a death sentence. He believes that one can live with HIV "for 30 years until you die of old age," as long as you live a healthy lifestyle and avoid immune-compromising substances.

Okay, like I said, I don't know what to think of this. Maybe it's the ravings of madmen or maybe they're right. I don't know. What they do make is a fairly interesting case--assuming that their opinions are, indeed, factually correct.

What I find personally disturbing from my own studies has to deal with fungal / candida infections, which, indeed, do occur primarily in immune-compromised individuals. However, that "immune-compromise" is not necessarily the result of an infection, but due to high stress and overproduction of the adrenal stress hormone, cortisol. Correct the stress and cortisol problems and the fungal infections can clear up naturally. However, if these problems are not treated at all, with only toxic HIV drugs given, then it is certainly plausible that these people are perhaps dying from their untreated infections, which are not going to be affected by HIV drugs.

I don't know. This definitely is as about as "radical" and "controversial" as it gets, so I would certainly be interested in your opinions.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-13-2003, 11:49 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,961
Local Time: 12:19 PM
definitely interesting. i'm not sure what to think either. the researchers mentioned in the article certainly can't be blown off completely.

do you mind if i ask where you got the article?
__________________

__________________
Screaming Flower is offline  
Old 05-13-2003, 11:54 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:19 PM
http://www.weeklydig.com/dig/content/3168.aspx

I got it from the print version of the "Weekly Dig," a small Boston publication, but the online version is above. It's a very leftist little newspaper, so the political bias cannot really be ignored.

It's food for thought, at minimum.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-13-2003, 11:59 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,961
Local Time: 12:19 PM
definitely.

thanks for the link.
__________________
Screaming Flower is offline  
Old 05-14-2003, 11:59 AM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:19 PM
This is interesting, to say the least.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-14-2003, 02:00 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:19 PM
http://www.weeklydig.com/dig/content/3389.aspx

I should add Part II to this discussion. It discusses AIDS drugs in depth, particularly AZT, and also discusses lifestyle issues.

Again, quite interesting, to say the least.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-14-2003, 02:15 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Very interesting. I'll pass it on to my friend, a clinical nutritionist specializing in autoimmune disorders. He has some pretty radical opinions as well so I'll be curious to know what he thinks.

All of my friends/acquaintances who were treated with AZT died. Every last one of them.

My closest friend now has been living with HIV for 15 years, refused AZT, and is doing great, despite a history of some pretty heavy abuse to his body. Working with our friend the nutritionist, his T-cells went up 300% in 3 months which took him out of the danger zone. Now that he's clean and sober, we hope to see continued good results.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 05-14-2003, 03:41 PM   #8
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 12:19 PM
Thanks for the articles. Very interesting view. Definitely not anything I've read before.

I've a few friends I'd love to pass this on to.

"All of my friends/acquaintances who were treated with AZT died. Every last one of them. "

Mine also.

edited to add:

I'll be looking forward to the segment on African Aids.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 05-16-2003, 02:10 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:19 PM
There has to be more thoughts to this, or is there too much reading involved?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-16-2003, 03:29 PM   #10
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 12:19 PM
No, I read it all and really don't know what to think. It seems to make very good sense if the back-up data is correct. I haven't tried to verify their statistics.

I'm confused on the aspect of transmission if it is not related to a single virus, unless it is still an unknown fluid born pathogen.

I see the point of the lifestyle impact, especially in the Gay community in the early 80's (no offense but I had quite a few male friends participating in some ways in the lifestyles the author spoke about), but how does that cover seeming mother to infant transmission. In third world situations (even here in the US) other reasons could be the cause, such as malnutrition, malaria, ect. But the incidence of transfusion transmission or birth in economically sound incidences are troubling using the authors hypothesis.

If it is mostly correct, it puts a whole new spin on the Admins. push to provide funding for Africa, which in truth at lot of that would be pharmacutical purchases.

Melon,
What are your thoughts?
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 05-16-2003, 03:55 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:19 PM
Again, I don't know much myself. Do these kids really have AIDS in the sickest sense when they are diagnosed or through the 1993 definition? If this article is correct that it is often misdiagnosed through antibody reactions, then it is fairly safe to say that the mother passes on antibodies to their child, throwing the HIV test. They give the drugs to the child to "prevent AIDS," which makes the child sick (there is no real debate on that--AZT and anti-retrovirals do make people terribly sick), and with AZT able to take out the immune system by itself (after all, it was a chemotherapy drug originally), it could be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

What puzzles me--and is a lingering question for me--do people who have other immune deficiency problems die as gruesomely as AIDS patients? Remember that having no immune system in itself won't kill you; it's the diseases you can pick up from it.

I don't know. I find myself arguing from a "devil's advocate" position here. I really don't know. If this is true, it will explain why a cure / vaccine will never be found.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-16-2003, 04:39 PM   #12
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 12:19 PM
In Africa they don't have the drugs to make the children sick, but they do have the other diseases to contend with and maybe they aren't treated for them because of the AIDS diagnosis.

Many people died from the blood supply before there was any treatment, much less AZT. Which could point to a still unknown virus.

Interesting. I'd like to see what other AIDS researchers not associated with either party mentioned in the article think.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 05-16-2003, 05:02 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:19 PM
Are we sure it's the blood supply? Again, HIV does exist; this article theorizes it to be innocuous, though. Africa's sanitation is so atrocious, though, that it really could be many other things killing them--and probably is.

Devil's advocate...

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-28-2003, 09:51 AM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:19 PM
http://www.weeklydig.com/dig/content/3822.aspx

"Africa: Treating Poverty With Toxic Drugs"

It's Part 3, for anyone who cares. I cannot be blamed for not following up on a story, long after it has fallen out of fashion.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-28-2003, 09:59 AM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:19 PM
For those who don't want to click on the link:

Africa - Treating Poverty with Toxic Drugs

by Liam Scheff

“As to diseases, make a habit of two things-to help, or at least to do no harm.”

-Hippocrates, 5th Century B.C.E. Greek Physician, regarded as the father of medicine.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS, 42 million people around the world are infected with HIV, and nearly 22 million people in Africa have died of AIDS. But AIDS isn't a single disease; it's a collection of diseases. When people are said to die of AIDS, they're known to die of a particular disease or condition, such as pneumonia, tuberculosis, malaria or basic malnutrition. AIDS researchers claim that HIV plays a role in the development of these illnesses, but in spite of this claim, 20 years of AIDS research has failed to prove causation between HIV infection and any so-called AIDS disease (as explored in “The AIDS Debate” parts one and two). So why do we call them AIDS deaths?

In the US, AIDS is defined as a collection of 29 previously-known conditions including yeast infections, herpes, salmonella, pneumonia, tuberculosis and Kaposi's Sarcoma. These conditions are not known to be caused by HIV. Nevertheless, the one thing that classifies any one of these conditions as AIDS is a positive HIV-antibody test.

But even if HIV was found to cause these previously known conditions, a problem remains. The HIV-antibody tests do not diagnose actual HIV-infection. Instead, they look for non-specific antibody reactions in your blood to proteins in the HIV-test. The test manufacturers claim that the proteins stand in for HIV, but in reality, none of the test proteins have been proven to be specific to HIV. These tests are, in fact, so nonspecific that they cross-react with nearly 70 other documented conditions, including the flu, previous vaccinations, blood transfusions, arthritis, alcoholic hepatitis, drug use, yeast infections and even pregnancy, as well as conditions endemic in Africa: tuberculosis, parasitic infection, leprosy and malaria. Because no HIV test can actually find HIV, not a single HIV-test has been approved by the FDA for diagnosing HIV-infection.

In light of this nonspecific, cross-reacting test, how does the World Health Organization (WHO) diagnose AIDS in Africa?

Simple: they don't require any test at all. In 1985, the WHO created a new definition of AIDS for African nations and third world countries. The WHO's “Bangui Definition” allows Africans with common physical symptoms including diarrhea, fever, weight loss, itching and coughing to be automatically designated as AIDS patients, with no HIV test. But these very symptoms define life for the majority of Africans who lack essentials like sufficient food, safe drinking water, proper sanitation and basic medical care. These symptoms are also synonymous with the biggest killers on the continent: malaria, infectious diarrhea and tuberculosis.

Western AIDS organizations are working to get toxic AIDS drugs into the hands of African governments, but what's the use of potentially deadly AIDS pharmaceuticals to people suffering from poverty-related diseases like chronic tuberculosis and malaria infection, or to pregnant mothers whose blood cross-reacts with the nonspecific HIV tests?

To answer these questions, I spoke with AIDS researchers who've worked in Africa and studied the African AIDS epidemic.

Dr. Christian Fiala is a medical doctor and specialist in obstetrics and gynecology in Vienna. He's worked extensively in Uganda and Thailand researching AIDS.

Dr. Rodney Richards was one of the founding scientists for the biotech company Amgen where he helped develop some of the first HIV tests. Richards currently works full-time researching AIDS.

The interviews were conducted separately and integrated into a dialogue. Individual points-of-view belong to individual speakers.

How is AIDS diagnosed in Africa?

Christian Fiala: Your readers may be surprised to learn that AIDS in Africa is diagnosed completely differently than in Europe or the US. In Africa, an AIDS diagnosis can be made based on commonly occurring physical symptoms alone. This is ironic, because AIDS is a collection of diseases, and has no uniform symptoms. Even the co-founder of HIV theory, Luc Montagnier, admits that AIDS has no specific clinical symptoms.

How was this new AIDS definition devised?

Fiala: In 1985 the WHO held a meeting in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic. A WHO official, Joseph McCormick, wrote about it in his book Level 4: Virus Hunters of the CDC.

He wrote: “If I could get everyone at the WHO meeting in Bangui to agree on a single, simple definition of what an AIDS case was in Africa, then, imperfect as the definition might be, we could actually start counting the cases...”

This is what's known as the Bangui Definition.

How does the Bangui definition define AIDS?

Fiala: There are two categories of symptoms, major and minor. A patient is given an AIDS diagnosis when they have two major symptoms and one minor symptom. The major symptoms are weight loss, chronic diarrhea and chronic fever. The minor symptoms include coughing and generalized itching.

Let me clarify, based on the WHO's definition, if you have a fever, a cough and diarrhea in Africa, then you have AIDS?

Fiala: That's correct.

That seems absurd.

Fiala: It is. It's more absurd when you understand how common these symptoms are in resource-poor settings like sub-Saharan Africa. To begin with, less than 50 percent of Africans have access to safe drinking water. Over 60 percent have no sanitation. Most African villages don't have sewage systems. Human and animal excrements mix with the water supply. People drink this water and ingest infectious parasites and bacteria. As a result, dysentery is endemic.

When your intestines are full of infectious microbes, you'll likely develop a fever. Your body will try to purge itself by expelling the bacteria as quickly as possible. This is infectious diarrhea, and it's incredibly common in Africa.

Diarrhea drains liquid, salts, minerals and nutrients from the body. It weakens the immune system. When you have no safe water, you'll have diarrhea chronically. When you have chronic diarrhea, you can't help but to lose weight.

At this point, you've fulfilled the major symptom criteria in the African definition for AIDS. So you need one minor symptom, like generalized itching or coughing. In Uganda, a so-called “AIDS epicenter,” 80 percent of houses have floors made of packed soil or cow dung. An entire family lives on this floor. There are, on average, seven children per family, all living in this room. This is not what we in the US and Europe call proper housing, and it's easy to see how a problem like “generalized itching” might come up. At this point, an African suffering from itching, diarrhea and weight loss should be - according to the WHO - officially reported as an AIDS patient. The Bangui Definition simply relabels symptoms of poverty as AIDS.

The second problem with the Bangui Definition is Tuberculosis. TB is very widespread in Africa. It's a bacterial infection that infects the lungs. TB is spread by coughing, and it's highly infectious. The typical symptoms of Tuberculosis are fever, weight loss and coughing. This is exactly what is required for an AIDS diagnosis.

So if you have Tuberculosis in Africa, you can be diagnosed with AIDS?

Fiala: That's correct. According to the WHO, the typical symptoms of TB define AIDS in Africa.

Another problem with the Bangui Definition is malaria. Malaria is the most widespread disease in Africa and tropical countries. It's the leading cause of death in Uganda. It's spread by mosquitoes, so people are reinfected several times a year. A great many people die every year, while the rest develop a relative immunity, even though it's wearing away at them. The symptoms of malaria include fever, weight loss and fatigue. If you have a cough or itching, and you have malaria in Africa, you can be diagnosed with AIDS.

As if this wasn't problematic enough, in some African countries, such as Tanzania, health authorities have decided that a one-criteria diagnosis is all they need. A patient exhibiting just one of the major symptoms - diarrhea, fever or weight loss - can be given an AIDS diagnosis.

This is hardly scientific, and it's very different from what people are told about AIDS in Africa. The idea that there should be a different kind of AIDS for Africans or Europeans or Americans defies the scientific definition of viral infection. A single virus doesn't cause different diseases in different people or in different countries. A viral infection doesn't vary so wildly so as to create pelvic cancer in women, Kaposi's sarcoma in gay men, and tuberculosis in Africans. But this is what we're asked to believe about HIV.

What's the treatment for TB and Malaria?

Fiala: The best treatment is prevention. The most effective way to reduce all of these infectious diseases is to improve the standard of living and hygiene for local residents - to provide safe, clean water; plentiful, healthy food; proper housing and basic medical care. This is exactly how the incidence of TB and other infectious diseases was dramatically reduced in the US and Europe.

The treatment for malaria is well known and simple: treated mosquito nets that protect villages; clean, safe, non-stagnant water; and the inexpensive, highly efficient drugs that effectively fight the disease.

Why don't African Countries have clean water systems?

Fiala: You could've asked that question 100 years ago in the US and Europe. Sewage and water systems rely on economic development. We have these things in the West because we know they're absolutely essential, so we've invested money and energy in them.

Many African nations don't have the money to develop this infrastructure and modernize the villages. The money they have is being re-routed into AIDS. These countries are being pressured by international AIDS organizations to take money out of rural development and put it into AIDS education, condom distribution, abstinence campaigns and toxic AIDS pharmaceuticals.

We're told that there are nearly 30 million African AIDS patients. This is an enormous number of people. How are these cases counted?

Fiala: The United Nations AIDS organization (UNAIDS) and the WHO use various computer modeling programs to come up with their numbers.

Rodney Richards: When you read about the millions of HIV-infected in Africa, you may notice that the word “estimated” precedes the number in the official publications.

What does “estimated” mean?

Richards: All WHO/UNAIDS reports of HIV-infection in Africa are "estimates" based on HIV tests performed on blood samples taken at pregnancy clinics. These global reports are created jointly by the WHO and UNAIDS.

Why is blood taken from pregnancy clinics?

Richards: In countries with little infrastructure, medical care is very limited, and is generally reserved for the most vulnerable segment of the population, such as infants and pregnant women. Even in the poorest countries, there are pregnancy clinics serving expectant mothers and women who've just given birth.

Pregnant women regularly line up at these clinics for a check-up that includes a blood screening for syphilis. Syphilis infection is common in many African countries, and must be treated before a baby's birth, or the child could die or be severely damaged.

Once a year, UNAIDS researchers collect leftover blood samples from these clinics, and test them with a single HIV-antibody test called the Elisa. The resulting number of HIV-positive results is fed into an epidemiological computer modeling program (Epi-model) at the WHO headquarters in Geneva. The Epi-model program then extrapolates the HIV-positive test results onto the entire population - young and old; men, women and children. When we hear about the number of people infected with HIV, it's this number that's being reported.

How do reported numbers of HIV-infection correspond to actual number of people tested?

Richards: The WHO/UNAIDS tells us that there are currently 30 million HIV-positive Africans, yet less than one in a thousand of these people have ever been tested. In South Africa, the WHO/UNAIDS reports 5 million people are infected with HIV, but this number is based on only 4,000 actual HIV-positive test results from pregnant women.

But even these positive test results are hardly indicative of HIV-infection. The HIV-antibody tests used in these surveys are known to come up positive based on cross-reactions with antibodies produced from malaria, TB and parasitic infection - all common conditions in Africa. The test manufacturers themselves warn that pregnancy is a known cause of false positives.

Fiala: Testing pregnant women for HIV-infection is a self-fulfilling prophecy, but pregnant women are the only people regularly tested for HIV-infection in sub-Saharan Africa.

We're told that 28 million people worldwide and 22 million Africans have died of AIDS. How are AIDS deaths counted in Africa?

Richards: AIDS deaths are also estimates. The number of deaths is projected from the Epi-model estimate of HIV-infections. It is assumed that if a certain number of people are HIV-infected, then a certain number will die of AIDS. This assumption is based on what researchers know historically about disease progression in AIDS patients, primarily from studies done on HIV-positive IV drug abusers and male homosexuals in the US and Europe.

Are these numbers accurate?

Richards: No, the numbers have been greatly inflated. For example, the WHO/UNAIDS says that there has been 2.2 million AIDS deaths in Uganda so far, but the Ugandan Ministry of Health records a cumulative total of only 56,000 AIDS deaths since the beginning of the epidemic. The WHO's report is 33 times higher than the actual number of recorded, verified deaths.

As of the end of 2001, official government bodies in the developing world have managed to account for only 7 percent of the cumulative AIDS deaths that the WHO/UNAIDS claim have occurred. The Russian Federation can only account for only 3 percent of the UNAIDS estimate of AIDS deaths. India has 2 percent of the UNAIDS estimate. China has only 1 percent.

If I understand correctly, the number of people we're told have HIV and AIDS in Africa is actually an inaccurate computer extrapolation based on test results from non-specific, cross-reacting antibody tests given to pregnant women?

Fiala: That's correct.

And the number of AIDS deaths in Africa is a projection based on the previous estimation, and is also greatly inflated?

Richards: That is also correct.

What does an AIDS diagnosis mean for an African with TB or malaria?

Fiala: In many African clinics, basic medical supplies like antibiotics are extremely limited. A clinic may only have 10 bottles of antibiotics. AIDS patients are frequently refused antibiotic treatment, because it's assumed that they'll die, no matter what. Western doctors have made it clear that AIDS is a fatal disease. Helping them is considered a waste of scarce resources.

What's the main AIDS organization in Uganda?

Fiala: TASO - The AIDS Support Organisation. They claim to be independent, but they're heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry. They're currently constructing buildings to prepare the ground for massive HIV testing, with this non-specific, cross-reacting test, and to distribute toxic AIDS drugs.

In Africa, 50 percent of the population has no access to clean drinking water and the vast majority lack even basic medical care. And the response from multimillion dollar AIDS organization is to promote HIV testing, give out condoms and to implement treatment with deadly AIDS drugs. These drugs are similar or identical to chemotherapy drugs used in cancer treatment. They work by stopping cell growth. They kill your body from the inside out.

Which AIDS drugs are being used in Africa?

Fiala: Boehringer, a pharmaceutical company, has been doing studies in Uganda with a drug called Nevirapine. The FDA refused approval of Nevirapine in the US for so-called mother to child transmission because it's ineffective and has deadly side effects, but this is exactly how the drug is being used in Africa - on pregnant women and unborn children.

In one drug trial, 17 percent of patients taking Nevirapine developed liver problems. A US health care worker taking Nevirapine had to have a liver transplant to save his life as a result of drug toxicity. Five women in South Africa died and dozens developed severe liver problems in a combination AIDS drug trial that included Nevirapine.

The manufacturer's warning label for Nevirapine itself states that patients taking the drug have experienced: “Severe, life-threatening and in some cases fatal hepatotoxicity [liver damage],” and “severe, life-threatening skin reactions, including fatal cases.”

These are the most toxic drugs known to medicine, and they're being applied to the most vulnerable part of the population - pregnant mothers, unborn children and newborns - all based on a faulty test, or no test at all, while their actual food, shelter and water needs continue to be ignored.

What would actually help Africans is infrastructure development: proper sanitation, safe water, basic medical care and plentiful, nutritive food. This is simple, clear and logical. What's astounding is that the UN is recommending just the opposite.

In 1999 the UNAIDS commission gave its official recommendations to a meeting of finance ministers representing various African countries. The UN's exact recommendations to African nations: to redirect billions of dollars from health, infrastructure and rural development into AIDS - condoms, safe sex lectures and deadly pharmaceuticals. This is not what these already suffering people need to be healthy and successful. This is exactly how to propagate death, disease and poverty.

Afterword:

If the AIDS story in Africa feels like a parody of a bureaucratic blunder, take note: In April of this year, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced a new HIV testing strategy for the United States. Rather than relying on voluntary HIV-testing, federal officials are urging the testing of all pregnant women in the US, and are implementing measures to make HIV-testing a routine part of hospital visits. The CDC is promoting a rapid HIV-test for use in all federally funded clinics, as well as homeless shelters, prisons and substance abuse treatment centers.

The HIV-antibody tests are known to cross-react with antibodies produced during pregnancy, drug abuse and nearly 70 other common conditions, and no HIV test is FDA approved to diagnose HIV infection. The standard medical treatment for HIV infection is a combination of the most toxic drugs ever manufactured.

“The AIDS Debate” series has explored the scientific and sociological process that formed HIV theory, and the ramifications of a speculative theory enforced upon a trusting, uninformed public.

We must ask ourselves, are we doing the best we can for sick people? Is the best we can offer impoverished Africans AZT and Nevirapine? Is the best we can do for drug-addicted mothers to force more drugs into their systems? And what about people unlucky enough to register HIV positive on these scientifically unvalidated tests. Do they deserve to be told that they have a fatal illness?

“As to diseases, make a habit of two things-to help, or at least to do no harm."

As for human beings, one thing's for sure. We can always do better.

----------------------------------------

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com