Re: BBC **LIES** About HIV TESTS

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Wolfgang G. Gasser wrote:

> This means that there are  (31 - 2) / 25,562 = 0.11%  false
> positives.
>
> Only  2 / 25,562 = 0.008%  turned out to be HIV+.
>
> It IS relevant whether <0.008%> or <0.008% + 0.11%>, but it is
> totally irrelevant whether <around 20%> or <around 20% + 0.11%>.

Nicely done - but why do _you_ persist in some of your own thought and
ideas on HIV and AIDS that can also be shown to be wrong?

> Alex, who are you, and for whom do you work? Why don't you
> point out the real contraditions of the AIDS paradigm? Why
> do you weaken the honest AIDS dissident movement by propagating
> the theses (for instance: "HIV does not exist") of the false
> "dissidents" working in fact for the AIDS establishment?

It's the dissidents who weaken their own arguments every time ;-)  The
dissident arguments seem to need multiple supports to exist, and yet the
simple "HIV infected leads to AIDS" theory, with no contradictions, gets
ignored.  I'm amazed.  I said to my wife just last week that I was arguing
this case 5 years ago, and the newsgroup misc.health.aids was established
to discuss this topic 5 years before that!  Despite the evidence from
protease inhibitors, viral load, immune dysfunction studies and lymph
node investigations in the last 10 years that have pretty much nailed
the thing, the debate blathers on.

Some things really do never change...

>
> I'm actually shocked by the stupidy of the mass media in cases
> such as AIDS, Ebola, BSE or SARS.

Now that I can agree with.  Bloody journalists.

> How is it possible that AIDS as "gay cancer" could have been
> subtly transformed into AIDS as a simple redefinition of
> poverty diseases, people always been dying of in huge quantity
> in Africa, and until not too long ago also in Europe (e.g.
> tuberculosis)?

Young adults _never_ died in the numbers they are now, except in times of
war.  Simple demographic changes in places like SA point that out for all
to see, well, those who care to look anyway.  It is NOT a simple
relabelling for those who bother to investigate.  Duesberg, who stated
this hypothesis originally, simply stated it.  The same as he stated that
AZT was rejected as a too-toxic cancer drug when one of the drug's
original investigators has said that it was rejected because it wasn't
toxic enough!!!

Check out Google groups archives for that tidbit.  I found it posted to a
Dissident mailing list, of all places.

>
> If an organisation has so much money as the AIDS establishment,
> every contradiction and every lie can be transformed into
> truth, and unfortunately many potential critics can be bought.
>
> Isn't it true that African AIDS activists earn several times
> more than normal teachers or health workers?
>

<chuckle>  Not if Bush and his cronies have their way.  He's just removed
funding to any sexual health clinics in Africa that promote condom use.  I
mean, it was nice of the US to give the funding in the first place, sure,
but to remove it based on a rather warped sense of moral values just
sucks.

> The perpetuation of the HIV-AIDS belief system is essentially
> based on a huge number of subtle cases of bribery.

Wow!  I wish I was on that bandwagon.  I mean, jeez, you'd have thought
that with all the time I've spent online talking about this topic I'd be a
millionaire by now!  Maybe I should've mentioned to my funding body what I
was working on?

Yours in minor sarcasm

Bennett :o)