STRAIGHT AIDS MYTH SHATTERED

New York Post
March 19, 2004 --

THE public health experts - and their amen corner in the media - owe Helen
Gurley Brown an apology.

The legendary Cosmopolitan editor was vilified in 1993 when she published
a piece called "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS." But she was right.

Eleven years later, Details is asking: "Whatever Happened to AIDS and
Straight Men?" The article states, "A disease-free man who has unprotected
sex with a drug-free woman stands a one in 5 million chance of contracting
HIV."
The story by Kevin Gray also cites a joke that made the rounds of the New
York City Department of Health as statistics came in showing that the
predicted spread of AIDS to heterosexuals wasn't happening:
"What do you call a man who got HIV from his girlfriend? . . . A liar."
"I feel somewhat vindicated," Brown told PAGE SIX.

Michael Fumento, who wrote the original 1990 book titled "The Myth of
Heterosexual AIDS," said, "I'm not waiting for an apology. It's not going
to happen."
When Basic Books published Fumento's tome, "Distributors refused to handle
it," he says. "Stores refused to carry it. And at many stores that did
have it, clerks left it in the basement."
Celia Farber, who wrote an AIDS column in Spin magazine, was routinely
attacked because she refused to rehash the propaganda put out by AmFAR and
other groups.
"Everybody who was wrong got journalism awards. Everybody who was right
got all but driven from the profession," Farber said.

Farber exposed the conspiracy between profit-hungry drug companies,
researchers who wanted more funding, homosexuals who didn't want the
disease to be known as "the gay plague," and conservatives who wanted to
turn back the sexual revolution.
"They believed in what they were doing, not what they were saying,"
Fumento said. "They knew it was lies. They felt the end justified the
means."
At a recent editorial meeting at Seed, the new science magazine, Pulitzer
Prize-winning reporter Laurie Garrett supposedly threatened to quit when a
colleague suggested a story about Peter Duesberg, a leading
retrovirologist.

Duesberg lost his funding, his laboratory, and his students when he
announced in 1987 that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. "He lost everything," said
one insider. Duesberg switched to cancer research, and is now touted to
win a Nobel Prize.



_______________


Less than one in a million

Caucasian heterosexual women (even including I..V. drugs users) represent
an 'AIDS' risk of only about ONE IN A MILLION or less. In California last
year there were only 79 cases.

HIV Testing Among Racial/Ethnic Minorities --- United States, 1999

Of the 774,467 AIDS cases reported to CDC during June 1981--December 2000
(2), blacks and Hispanics accounted for 56% of cases, although they
represented 25% of the U.S. population during this period. In 2000, the
incidence of adult and adolescent AIDS cases per 100,000 population was
74.2 for blacks, 30.4 for Hispanics, and 7.9 for whites.

Of the 7.9% Caucasian cases only about 7% are said to be from heterosexual
activity. (Source: - CDC)

That translates to 0.55 per 100,000 or: -

JUST ONE AIDS CASE IN EVERY 200,000 Caucasian heterosexuals.

Hardly a spectacular figure.Lightning deaths in America kill 75 to 100
people a year.

BUT WOMEN ARE ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THAT VERY SMALL FIGURE

Caucasian heterosexual women (even including I..V. drugs users) represent
an 'AIDS' risk of only about ONE IN A MILLION or less. In California last
year there were only 79 cases.

IN REAL TERMS A ZERO RISK!


These figures beg the question is 'AIDS' caused by an std or by poverty.
Could African American and Hispanic women really be having so much more
sex? A graph of 'AIDS' fits perfectly with a graph of poverty in America
but in no way reflects sexual activity.

_____________


Author Michael Fumento, in his book The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, offers
substantial evidence that white, middle-class, non IV drugabuser
heterosexuals are in less danger of contracting AIDS thru non-anal, sexual
intercourse than they are of dying from shark attacks, being hit by
lightning, or accidentally drowning in the bathtub. The
book is very well referenced and documented.

The book was reviewed by the Journal of the American Medical Assn as "the
best single source available to enable heterosexual persons to assess
their personal risk."

In article <b42d247d721b8b979858c69b4e4c02ea@localhost.talkab outhealthnetwork.com>,
PaulKing <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:
I'm going to pick a nit. According to statistics I found for
the year 2002 at ww.cdc.gov, 787 white non-hispanic women in the
US developed AIDS resulting from heterosexual contact. If the US
population is around 300 million, half of that (150 million) is female.
Say about 3/4 of that (112 million) are white females. I don't know
what fraction of that are adult or adolescent females (the group
represented by these statistics) so I'll leave it at 112 million.
That makes the AIDS incidence for that group 7 out of a million.

And that figure, unlike yours, *doesn't* include IV drug abusers.

So how did you arrive at such a low figure? I notice you quoted
a figure only for California. Did you ignore information from the
other states because it didn't embarrass mainstream science enough
for your purposes?

Enough nitpicking. Maybe when all things are taken into account
accurately, the HIV incidence for white non-hispanic heterosexual
non-drug abusing American women will be somewhere around 10 in
a million. That's *still* very low.

I ask you, is this a failure of scientific prediction or a triumph
of AIDS-prevention education -- education that people like you are
working to sabotage?

--
David Canzi She couldn't get over the skimpiness of his worldly goods.
"Maybe you ought to rethink crime as a career path," she said.
"I do, all the time," he said, "but nothing else gives me the
same job satisfaction." -- Donald E. Westlake, Put A Lid On It

Dear David,

I based my figures on the cumulative 1983 to 2001 figures. One problem is
that CDC figures simply don't add up. They may have experts but it is
clear they have not mastered basic maths.

See if you can make sense of these CDC figures: -


Simple maths?

We are told by the CDC : -

"The HIV/AIDS crisis at home remains tragic as precious lives continue
to be lost to the disease. Each year 40,000
Americans are infected with HIV. Currently, an estimated 900,000
Americans are HIV positive and evidence indicates those numbers are
increasing, not declining or even holding steady."

What is startling is that this is the same line we've been told for
years now. We supposedly have this increasing
number of "HIV converts" (40,000 per year), yet that number, 40,000
remains the same year after year. Weird. It like, 40,000, 40,000,
40,000, 40,000, 40,000 and on and on and we have 'evidence' for increasing
seroconversions. Lame.

And that number, 900,000. Someone at the CDC just completely pulled that
number from their ass.

In 1990 the CDC retroactively revised downward the estimates of
HlV-infected persons for the period of 1985-89 (in the US). It went from
1.2 million to 0.75 million. The number for 1990 itself was said to be
about I million (CDC, 1990). Then, in 1996, the CDC retrospectively
revised downward the 1992 estimate to yet another figure of 650,000. By
1996, the number of people said to be infected was between
650,000 and 900,000.

So there's that number 900,000 being used in 1996. Yet now in 2003 we
supposedely still have 900,000
ESTIMATED infected people according to the SGN article (they use the word
'currently'). However, in 1999, to further confuse matters, the
CDC estimated HIV incidence as approximately 40,000 infections per year
and the number of persons living with HIV at about 800,000 to
900,000 (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999). So if you're head isn't just
spinning quite yet, consider this; if, in 1996, they had an
estimated 650,000 to 900,000 HIV 'poz' folk, in 1999 they had 800,000 to
900,000 'poz' folk. Why only increase the lower estimate? Do we
now only have ONE estimate and not a range? If we take the 1996 estimate
of 900,000 and add 40,000 new cases per year until the end of
2001, we really should have 1,140,000 'poz' people. If we go back to 1992,
when
the number was said to be a firm 650,000 and add 40,000 cases per year
until 2002, we come up with 1,050,000 cases. So where they get
this 40,000 number and 900,000 is beyond me. Perhaps they revised the
numbers down without really telling anyone.

I hope you are all completely and utterly confused, because frankly, I
think the CDC, with all their numerous PhD
heads running around, are as equally confused.


Thanks for a well researched post.

Warmest regards,


Paul

How do we know that there are so few heterosexuals who are HIV+? This test
has to be asked for - if you are not pregnant or asylumseeker. Straight men
have sex with men - and women. Women think those are heteros - and maybe
homosexuals think they are closethomosexuals who little by little will "come
out".
Sexuality is not pure and locked into groups. The irresponsibility and
hedonism is growing in our time. The lack of intimity isn't longer existing
just among homosexuals and prostituted, but is also in "close relations".
I wonder if maybe a lot of women would test pos if they got tested - and
that they maybe live healthy because they don't know their situation and
they get their infections threated - so they don't develope AIDS. Why is
this test that exclusive? Why not test everyone - let us say every second
year as a part of a normal screening - or noone?
"PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> skrev i melding
news:b0b0347c045935909cbb9955b6a4e0c2@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...

HERE IS WHY: -

Hidden Facts and Dangers of HIV Tests
What's in the Fine Print


Remarkable information about HIV tests including the fact that no HIV test
has ever been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the
actual diagnosing of HIV infection.

Few doctors, clinics, journalists, or AIDS organizations know that all
current HIV tests are approved only as screening tests, prognostic tests
(for predicting a possible future outcome) or as "an aid in diagnosis" and
are not intended to be used for determining if a person actually has HIV.

The FDA's lack of such approval speaks to the fact that no HIV test can
directly detect or quantify HIV or determine the presence of specific HIV
antibodies in human blood.

Recent changes in the fine print of the test kits acknowledge this little
known data and seem to indicate a change of thought with regard to the
role of HIV in AIDS.

From 1984 until last year, test literature contained the very certain
statement that "AIDS is CAUSED by HIV." Then in November of 2002, a new
test kit started what now seems to be a trend toward rethinking the causal
link between HIV and AIDS. It states, "AIDS, AIDS related complex and
pre-AIDS
are THOUGHT TO BE CAUSED by HIV." (OraQuick Rapid HIV-1 Antibody Test,
OraSure Technologies, Inc)

Now it appears we've gone from "HIV is thought to cause AIDS," to
something even more uncertain: "Published data indicate A STRONG
CORRELATION between the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and a
retrovirus REFERRED TO as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)."

This last quote is found in the package insert for a new ELISA test
(Vironostika HIV-1 Plus O Microelisa System) the FDA approved in June
2003.
The entire package insert can be downloaded from

http://www.fda.gov/cber/pma/P020066.htm

According to Alive & Well advisor Dr Rodney Richards, a chemist and
co-creator of the very first HIV test, as of June 2003, the number of FDA
approved tests that contain the term HIV or LAV (the old school term for
the so-called virus) have risen to 36. Of these, 13 have been approved in
just the last three years.

Richards points out that "despite the increased number of HIV tests, there
is still no manufacturer that claims their test can be used to diagnose
infection with HIV. All of the RNA based tests for viral load and
genotyping clearly state they are 'NOT intended for use in diagnosing HIV
infection.'
Instead of an indication for use in detecting or quantifying the actual
virus, these tests are approved only for prognosis or monitoring therapy
for people who doctors assume are infected.�

Richards is working on a document to clarify what HIV test
manufacturers mean by the terms "prognosis," "monitoring of therapy," and
"aid in the diagnosis of HIV." His report will focus on what the tests
cannot do (diagnose HIV infection) and what exactly they can.

At first glance, the rapid tests may appear relatively benign since the
manufacturers clearly emphasize that "preliminary positives" must be
confirmed with follow up testing. This emphasis is due to the fact that
the accuracy of the rapid tests� is widely known to be more
questionable than the already dubious HIV ELISA or Western Blot. But the
notion that
medical personnel will await confirmation of results before insisting
patients take action is entirely misguided since the true market for rapid
tests is pregnant women in labor

Incredibly, the recommendation to misuse rapid tests for women in labor
comes directly from the Deputy Commissioner of the FDA himself, Dr. Lester
M Crawford. The good doctor says "OraQuick will be a great help in
identifying pregnant HIV-infected women going into labor who were not
tested during pregnancy so that precautionary steps can be taken to block
their newborns from being infected with HIV." (FDA News, November 7,
2002)

These precautionary steps include IV infusion of the toxic chemotherapy
AZT during labor, C-section delivery, six weeks of mandatory AZT treatment
for the baby regardless of their own HIV status, and orders to the mother
not to breastfeed. Even though chemotherapy, surgery and denial of normal
feeding are based on preliminary results from a test never approved for
detecting HIV infection, a mother who declines such intervention risks
losing custody of her child.

Perhaps more remarkable than official calls for misuse of rapid tests is a
disclosure by the manufacturer of the OraQuick that 7% of women with a
history of prior pregnancy will score falsely positive on their test.
Further, the manufacturer of the newly approved Reveal test didn't even
evaluate their product in multiparous women.

Worse still, as Dr Richards points out, the rapid tests may soon be
routinely administered to women tested negative before labor. "Based on
the erroneous belief these tests can actually diagnose HIV infection,
doctors may want to retest women in labor who�ve previously come up
negative just to
be sure they haven't seroconverted in the mean time."

Another lucrative market for the rapid tests is among healthcare workers
who experience accidental needle sticks or other unintentional contact
with patient fluids. As Richard points out, this opens a Pandora�s
box of potential life-altering situations.

"Imagine a nurse sticks herself with a used needle. Ora-Sure gives her the
impression she can find out quickly if that needle is contaminated with
HIV. Should the needle score positive, she would then be urged to start
prophylactic chemotherapy right away. Of course, if the needle scores
positive, hospitals would most likely feel an ethical responsibility to
inform the patient and to urge them to also start 'saving their lives'
with AIDS meds. Since there are 600,000 to 1,000,000 accidental needles
sticks in the US annually, this is a huge market for both the test and
treatment manufacturers."

The great influence of drug and test manufacturers on public health
policy, media presentations and among AIDS activist groups may mean that
the hidden dangers of rapid tests will remain unknown.

In article <724fe1cd3942811f5825fdb7d225ed32@localhost.talkab outhealthnetwork.com>,
PaulKing <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:
Paul:

Please indicate which of traviata's questions your repost addresses,
and show which parts of your repost are relevant to each question.

So far I have seen no evidence that you understand the questions we
ask you, nor any evidence that you understand the articles you repost
well enough to know which parts, if any, are relevant to our questions.

All you seem capable of doing is posting, reposting, and re-reposting
articles written by others.

And denialists accuse *us* of just parroting what we're told...

--
David Canzi She couldn't get over the skimpiness of his worldly goods.
"Maybe you ought to rethink crime as a career path," she said.
"I do, all the time," he said, "but nothing else gives me the
same job satisfaction." -- Donald E. Westlake, Put A Lid On It

In article <b0b0347c045935909cbb9955b6a4e0c2@localhost.talkab outhealthnetwork.com>,
PaulKing <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:
Your article said:

| Caucasian heterosexual women (even including I..V. drugs users) represent
| an 'AIDS' risk of only about ONE IN A MILLION or less. In California last
| year there were only 79 cases.

Last year was 2003. How did you calculate an AIDS incidence figure
for the year 2003 from cumulative statistics ending in 2001?

Where did you get those cumulative figures from? Give an URL for
some reasonably authoritative source (eg. CDC) and I'll give you the
URL I got my figures from.

--
David Canzi She couldn't get over the skimpiness of his worldly goods.
"Maybe you ought to rethink crime as a career path," she said.
"I do, all the time," he said, "but nothing else gives me the
same job satisfaction." -- Donald E. Westlake, Put A Lid On It

David Canzi wrote:


Yes, an interesting phenomenon to be sure.

I guess it comes down to having a few denialist type web sites from
which they copy and paste. They try to get it as close as possible to
the topic but when they don't have an answer they just post anything.

Did you notice however how they dropped the malaria thread and ran? Was
not looking good for their argument was it.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1302/table7.htm

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:34:19 -0400, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

Interesting site. Shows :
AIDS cases by sex, age at diagnosis, and race/ethnicity, reported
through December 2001, United States

This is not the same as the number of HIV+ individuals, as for many
people for many years, HIV infection only slowly causes CD4+ decline
to the point of AIDS.

George M. Carter

"HIV infection only slowly causes CD4+ decline
to the point of AIDS.'


I love the excuse for everything. I call that making a hypothesis so vague
it fit everything. A trick learned for the Church.

I am using CDC figures for 'AIDS'. What more do you want.


Best wishes,

Paul

My figure came from the tables linked to
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/addendum.htm

--
David Canzi All it takes to keep a controversy going is one chronically
wrong idiot who won't shut up. A controversy is not evidence
that there are actually two sides worth hearing.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:26:09 -0400, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

So you are bashing the Church? Heavens.

A hypothesis is an idea that can be experimentally tested. The tests
for HIV and its relation to decline of CD4 count are myriad and
satisfactory to most sensible people. If you do not believe it, get
infected and find out for yourself.

Of course, diseases are variable. Maybe you'll be a lucky
non-progressor? Then you can say HIV doesn't cause AIDS! Whee! Of
course that won't help Pasquarelli.

Many diseases have periods of relative clinical quiescence before a
person manifests symptoms. Cancer, viral hepatitis (B and C),
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's. There is nothing remarkable or strange in
that.

Well, I realize some basic concepts are difficult to grasp for you.
Let's try again. A person becomes infected. They may have a period of
acute illness. But they recover and remain clinically stable, but the
CD4 count begins to deteriorate. The rate of decline is variable from
person to person. Some people have very rapid declines: within a
couple of years they can be below 100. Others take very long (over a
decade). Mostly, somewhere between 5-8 years, the majority of infected
individuals will see a substantial decline.

Once below 200 or with the development of certain opportunistic
infections, they then are diagnosed with AIDS.

This means there is a pool of people who are HIV+ but who do NOT have
AIDS. This number is larger than the number of people with AIDS.

Obtaining those data are important--yet one must also preserve the
confidentiality of patients. Sadly, the CDC has adopted a threatening
stance to states who do not adopt a names reporting approach; others
have found "unique identifiers" help to capture data on numbers of
people with HIV while preserving their individual rights and
confidentiality (and so, preserve from stigma and discrimination in
housing, employment, etc.)

Of course, to you, none of this is important because you cling to your
pretty fantasy. Why, I wonder?

LOL. Liar.

George M. Carter