24 March, 2006

‘AIDS Denial’

Posted by alex in academia, frauds, health, medicine, queers, science at 3:15 am | Permanent Link

[Turns out HIV doesn't exist or doesn't matter. Mention this, you're a Holocaust denier by a very, very slightly different name. The proper name for AIDS is, as we have said, Q-RID, for Queer-Related Immuno-Deficiency. The 'AIDS' phenomenon is essentially a political campaign to shift the cost and moral responsibility for worn-out homo-rectums onto Normal White America. The joke turns out to be on the whiffenpoof, as the pills he gulps to preserve homeostasis make his liver look like his asshole.]

Why I Quit HIV: The Aftermath

by Rebecca V. Culshaw
by Rebecca V. Culsha

I want to start with an apology. I regret that I have not been able to individually answer every email I’ve received in the wake of my essay, “Why I Quit HIV,” which recently appeared on Lew Rockwell. I am grateful for this forum, and I hope that I will be able to clear up some confusion people appear to have experienced. I’d also like to express my gratitude for the many, many positive and indeed inspirational letters I’ve received.


Now I’d like to address some common questions I received.

Many people inquired what impact the article would have on my job or career. I have not quit my job, nor have I been fired (so far). I’ve simply abandoned one area of research – I doubt I’ll ever be able to publish in mathematical biology again, but that was the risk I knew I was taking. Thank you all for your concern.

A few individuals kindly suggested that I inject myself with the blood of a late-stage AIDS patient. While such an act might sensationalize my viewpoint, there are a number of problems with such an “experiment.” First, I can only imagine the non-HIV contaminants that might be found in such blood. Second, the data and results contained in the literature are sufficient to cast doubt on HIV. But most importantly, such an “experiment” would hardly settle anything, given the “latency period” of 10-15 years for progression to “AIDS.”

Many people insisted that I don’t know what I’m talking about because I offer no alternative explanations for AIDS. There are many alternative explanations for “AIDS,” or severe immune deficiency. The immunosuppressive effects of malnutrition, chronic drug abuse (pharmaceutical as well as recreational), parasitic infections, psychological stress, and other risks were well-established long before “AIDS” became recognized in the early 1980s. The fact is that most (but not all) AIDS patients do belong to risk groups whose members are subject to one or more of the above assaults. This fact can be checked by reading the annual CDC surveillance reports, although drug use is hidden because the CDC gives priority to “sexual transmission.” And I should point out that the correlation between positive antibody tests and immune deficiency doesn’t necessarily imply that HIV is the cause. To shamelessly steal an analogy from Peter Duesberg, just because long-term smokers often tend to develop yellow fingers along with lung cancer, does not mean that yellow fingers cause lung cancer. This is what we refer to in statistics as a “lurking variable” – correlated but not the cause, and hence confounding the issue. In any case, pointing out the flaws in an existing theory in no way obliges me to produce an alternative.

I did receive several emails from people like myself who work or have worked with AIDS every day, people who have growing doubts or who have abandoned the theory altogether. These include doctors, pharmacists, biologists and social workers.

“I volunteer in a Community Health Center, which was started twenty years ago, mainly for HIV positive people, though our clientele has expanded to all sections of our community. Also, as a former physician and then a psychiatrist, I was never able to understand this mysterious ‘disease’, and your writing has clarified a lot of that mystery.”

And there was also the following quote, from a social worker who works with HIV-positive prisoners:

“Having worked with women with HIV in a prison environment, they always seemed more scared than sick.”

The letters that particularly affected me were those from people diagnosed with HIV, or who have lost loved ones to AIDS. I have lost count of the number of people who have told me that they are convinced their friends and lovers died from AZT poisoning rather than HIV. I have nothing to offer but my utmost sympathy. I’ve received mail from people who are HIV-positive and healthy for years without any AIDS medications. I have also gotten more letters than I was expecting from people whose lives have been seriously affected by false positive diagnoses, including a man who lost his position in the military after a positive HIV test, despite being at very little risk, and despite having had malaria and numerous vaccinations. He’s out of work now.

“I am a low-low-low-low risk group guy who has been diagnosed with HIV as a part of yearly tests (military). As a hetero[sexual], monogamous (10 years with one NEG[ATIVE] partner), non-IV drug using male…I was skeptical. However the “system” is not skeptical and it has subsequently tubed my previously successful career…The fact that I have had malaria and about a billion weird immunization shots (incl[uding] Anthrax) has not been brought up as possible source of false positive.”

For everyone who has been affected by AIDS in one way or another, and for those of you who have an abiding concern about doing science correctly, please know that I read all of your letters and you are in my thoughts. What I wrote was very personal, but it was also intended to serve another purpose: the average person should be aware of all the information that exists, not just what’s been fed to us through the government propaganda machine. The individual citizen should be able to make informed choices about their health and their life. Let’s not allow overzealous, misinformed public health agencies to take away that right from us.

The article also attracted some comments from the blogosphere. The following comments appeared at a blog called Aetiology, which is owned and maintained by Seed magazine:

“That’s rich. First, as I mentioned, she’s a mathematician. I don’t know what her background is in infectious disease epi[demiology] (I contacted her but she did not respond), and she obviously shows little understanding of molecular biology in her comments about PCR (by her logic, any microbe shouldn’t cause us harm because they are so tiny).” March 9, 2006 10:43 AM

Yes, I am just a mathematician. I’ve never treated an AIDS patient, nor have I worked with HIV in the lab. But in the course of my work, I have studied both the microbiological and epidemiological aspects of AIDS, and the current HIV theory fails to explain either of these. Ever more convoluted explanations for HIV pathogenesis and epidemiology are not the signs of a mysterious virus, but rather the signs of a theory that is being shaped to fit the facts.

The following quote, as well as the quote above, indicate some confusion over what I had to say about PCR. This comes from an aspiring microbiology student:

“To understand my shock at the content of this article, you have to understand how incredibly steeped in the doctrine of the AIDS generation current education in Microbiology is. In the several years I have been working on my B.Sc, I have taken probably five courses that featured HIV or AIDS as prime examples of their precepts, have taken a course from one AIDS researcher, and have read about AIDS from several more. The idea of the AIDS virus has been one of the best known and studied examples of classical virology that we’ve ever had…I haven’t read the whole article yet, but from the part I’ve read, it seems that it’s written by a disgruntled HIV mathematician who got out of the race when she discovered that her paradigm and that of the establishment in this medical research field were radically different. From what I read, her science seems fine, except for some pretty disdainful and poorly-educated opinions on some of the best-used and most well-understood DNA techniques, such as PCR, or Polymerase Chain Reaction (the technique used by crime-scene units to amplify very small amounts of DNA so it can be identified, matched or analyzed):

If something has to be mass-produced to even be seen, and the result of that mass-production is used to estimate how much of a pathogen there is, it might lead a person to wonder how relevant the pathogen was in the first place.

First of all – to say this, a person needs to have absolutely no concept of how small DNA is, the degree of virulence of the pathogen being studied, and essentially no concept of how microbiology works. In short – a mathematician.” The AIDS “Theory.”To be very clear, I did not mean that HIV cannot be pathogenic because it is so small, I meant it cannot be pathogenic because it is so sparse; there is so little of it to be found. I was comparing PCR to a Xerox machine, rather than a magnifying glass. We need the Xerox machine because traditional virus culture techniques fail to detect HIV. Worse yet, PCR is used to measure “viral load,” but this quantitative use of PCR has never been validated. As mathematician Mark Craddock has said, “If PCR is the only way that the virus can be detected, then how do you establish the precise viral load independently of PCR, so that you can be certain that the figures PCR gives are correct?” An alarmingly simple question, when you think about it; perhaps too simple for an AIDS establishment already fully committed to “surrogate markers,” protease inhibitors and “combination therapies.”

And finally, a random blogger at LibertyPost.org appears to be lauding the toxicities of protease inhibitors:

“And worse, she claims that protease inhibitors are killing HIV patients, ‘And the leading cause of death in HIV-positives in the last few years has been liver failure, not an AIDS-defining disease in any way, but rather an acknowledged side effect of protease inhibitors, which asymptomatic individuals take in massive daily doses, for years,’ when that’s exactly what you would hope for (mortality drastically decreasing to the point that more deaths were the result of side effects) if protease inhibitors were in fact EFFECTIVE treatment for AIDS.” posted on 2006-03-03

Finally, I received a series of odd emails from a prominent government HIV researcher, which includes the following quote:

“The AIDS denialists are making some noise about you being the ‘latest PhD researcher’ to refute HIV as the cause of AIDS. The document they are citing…does not contain any new research, but only repeats a lot of the standard denialist disinformation.”

The opening of this email begins with the use of the pejorative and entirely unnecessary term “denialist,” and this was followed by an “elucidation” of various aspects of virology that I imagine were intended to persuade me to change my mind, despite the fact that the arguments given were precisely those arguments that led me to doubt HIV in the first place.

The arguments I presented were not intended to be “new research,” but rather a short summary of the rather substantive questions that scientists such as Peter Duesberg and others have raised, which have still not been adequately answered. If the AIDS establishment is so convinced of the validity of what they say, they should have no fear of a public, adjudicated debate between the major orthodox and dissenting scientists to settle the matter once and for all. Yet all the major AIDS researchers have averted such a public debate, either by claiming that the “overwhelming scientific consensus” makes such a debate superfluous, or by saying that they are “too busy saving lives.” In place of public debate, clearly politically motivated documents such as the Durban Declaration remain the establishment’s standard response to dissenting voices. Even a cursory reading of this pathetic document reveals it to be a statement of faith, designed to divert attention from dissenters at the very moment when they were threatening to expose the orthodoxy in South Africa in 2000.

To clarify an issue that has caused some confusion, it was not the mathematical models themselves that caused me to doubt HIV, but rather the scientific literature on which the models are based. Billions of dollars have been spent on HIV, and this has not led to a greater understanding of the virus, but rather to a series of unproven or incorrect speculations which have been widely trumpeted in both the scientific and lay press. Such a track record is indicative of institutional problems in modern biomedicine.

The famous Ho/Shaw 1995 Nature papers are a typical example of this phenomenon. These were the papers largely responsible for popularizing HAART (the so-called “Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy”) and the “Hit hard, hit early” regime as a treatment for “HIV disease” and “viral load” as a measure of treatment success. The mathematical models used in these papers were claimed to show that HIV replicated furiously from day one – in contrast to earlier evidence suggesting it to be quite inactive. Even now, few people are aware that these conclusions were based on very poorly constructed mathematical models. Anyone who has taken a first course in differential equations can see that, if analyzed properly, the models predict the onset of AIDS within weeks or months after infection by HIV, before antiviral immunity. (For anyone interested in a mathematical refutation of the Ho paper, I refer you to Mark Craddock’s analysis. Similar criticisms have been directed at the Shaw paper.)

This example illustrates a central flaw in the HIV theory. The vast majority of the literature I’ve seen uses what is known as circular logic – you assume that something will happen, and then you mold the definitions, models, experiments, and results to support that conclusion. Craddock describes a typical example of circular logic in the Shaw paper:

“They are trying to estimate viral production rates by measuring viral loads at different times and trying to fit the numbers to their formula for free virus. But if their formula is wrong, then their estimates for viral production will be wrong too.”

Such tactics, by definition, are excellent at maintaining the façade of a near-perfect correlation between HIV and AIDS, and of providing seemingly convincing explanations of HIV pathogenesis. But the resultant science does little to expand our actual understanding.To fully appreciate how such tactics became common, one needs to revisit the beginning of AIDS science. In 1984, HIV was announced as the cause of AIDS at a press conference before any supporting literature was published and had a chance to be critiqued by the scientific community. By the time the supporting papers were published, the lay press had all but declared HIV to be “the AIDS virus,” and debate in the scientific arena was squelched. The current commonly used orthodox tactic of arguing by intimidation and forcing the conclusions to fit the facts became entrenched. Consider the time period in the scientific literature, when HIV went from being “the probable cause of AIDS” (1984) to simply “the cause of AIDS” (1985). What changed? What happened to make scientists come to such certainty? If you look at the actual papers, you’ll see quite clearly that the answer is: Nothing.

Returning to the Ho/Shaw papers, these have essentially been debunked by both establishment and dissenting researchers, on biological as well as mathematical grounds; they are now acknowledged to be wrong by the scientific community, and it remains a mystery how they were ever able to pass peer review in the first place. It is often asked, “Why should we care at this point? Those papers are 11 years old; our understanding has progressed since then.” The short answer is that “viral load” and combination therapies are used to this day, despite the fact that they were originally based on these incorrect papers. Although current therapeutic regimens have been scaled back from the “Hit hard, hit early” dogma that was popular ten years ago, the fact remains that a large population of people have been, and continue to be, treated on the basis of a theory that is fundamentally unsupportable.

Yet there is another answer to this question which is even more fundamental. It is a curious fact that few HIV researchers seem to be bothered by the events surrounding the Ho/Shaw papers. You might imagine that people might “care at this point” because of concern over the integrity of science. You might imagine that people might feel an urge to discuss how the papers got published, and if other such mistakes have happened since that time. You might imagine that the failure of the peer review process to detect such patently inept research would send off alarm bells within the HIV research community.

You would be wrong.

HIV researchers know the Ho/Shaw papers are wrong, yet they continue along the clinical path charted by the papers. They know that the quantitative use of PCR has never been validated, yet they continue to use “viral load” to make clinical decisions. They know that the history of HIV/AIDS is littered with documented cases of fraud, incompetence, and poor quality research, yet they find it almost impossible to imagine that this could be happening at the present moment. They know their predictions have never panned out, yet they keep inventing mysterious mechanisms for HIV pathogenesis. They know many therapies of the past are now acknowledged to be mistakes (AZT monotherapy, Hit hard, hit early), yet they never imagine that their current therapies (the ever-growing list of combination therapies) might one day be acknowledged as mistakes themselves.

As a final thought, I am often asked, “How could medicine have made such a big mistake? How could so many people be wrong?.” I believe the answer lies in the disintegration of scientific standards that have resulted, in large part, from the changing expectations of academic scientists. I’m an assistant professor, and my father is also a professor in the physical sciences, so I have had plenty of opportunity to see exactly how research expectations affect the quality of work we produce. It is clear to me that the pressure to obtain big government grants and to publish as many papers as possible is not necessarily helping the advancement of science. Rather, academics (and in particular, young ones) are pressured to choose projects that can be completed quickly and easily, so as to increase their publication list as fast as possible. As a result, quality suffers.

This lowering of scientific standards and critical thinking has been apparent in many aspects of research for some time, and after several generations of students, it is now beginning to infiltrate the classroom – the textbooks and the undergraduate curriculum. It is germane at this point to indicate that many of the common arguments presented in response to the queries of HIV/AIDS skeptics are essentially some form of appeal to the use of low standards. (For example, “You don’t need a reference that HIV causes AIDS,” “The fact that HIV and AIDS are so well correlated indicates that it must be the cause,” “HIV is a new virus, and new viruses will meet new standards,” “Koch’s postulates are outdated and don’t apply in this day and age,” “We don’t need to worry about actual infectious virus, viral ‘markers’ should suffice,” or “Real scientists do experiments; they don’t write review articles on the literature.”) All of these observations are eloquently summed up, again by Craddock:

“Science is about making observations and trying to fit them into a theoretical framework. Having the theoretical framework allows us to make predictions about phenomena that we can then test. HIV “science” long ago set off on a different path…People who ask simple, straightforward questions are labeled as loonies who are dangerous to public health.”

It is this decline in scientific standards that I point to, when I am asked how so many people could be so wrong. Given the current research atmosphere, it was almost inevitable that a really, really big scientific mistake was going to be made. But we can still have hope for the future – hope that institutional and political pressures will no longer continue to cost lives, and hope that we will soon see honest dialogue and debate, free of name-calling and intimidation.March 21, 2006

Rebecca V. Culshaw, Ph.D. [send her mail], is a mathematical biologist who has been working on mathematical models of HIV infection for the past ten years. She received her Ph.D. (mathematics with a specialization in mathematical biology) from Dalhousie University in Canada in 2002 and is currently employed as an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at a university in Texas.


  • Similar posts:

    1. 12/01/07 World AIDS Day 58% similar
    2. 06/05/10 Still More About Jewish Genetics 11% similar
    3. 09/03/07 Dr. Pierce on Education 6% similar
    4. 12/20/06 Is Sunlight Racist? 5% similar
    5. 03/25/06 The Scam Called College 5% similar
    6. 36 Responses to “‘AIDS Denial’”

      1. alex Says:

        “If the AIDS establishment is so convinced of the validity of what they say, they should have no fear of a public, adjudicated debate between the major orthodox and dissenting scientists to settle the matter once and for all.”

        Sounds like Ahmadinjead on the Holocaust!

        The parallels are perfect.

        What this chick may not grasp is that jews don’t debate, it’s beneath them. Oh- and they have no leg to stand on.

      2. alex Says:

        HIV “science� long ago set off on a different path…People who ask simple, straightforward questions are labeled as loonies who are dangerous to public health.�

        People…am I alone here in thinking we need AIDS denial laws?

      3. A. Says:

        Sorry this is all over my head. Just tell me what is killing all the darkies in Africa.

      4. Harry Tuttle Says:

        The greatest feeling of all is knowing that God hates fags far more than you will ever be capable of. He also hates niggers with a passion, for obvious reasons – who likes ‘em? AIDs is God’s way of saying, I can’t stand you. Keep talking about what an indispensable color matcher you are, but while you’re running your mouth I’m shooting this flesh-wasting superbug right up your ass. Go and charm that, Pokeback Mountin’ style.

      5. alex Says:

        But that’s the point – there is no superbug. It’s an itty bitty bug, if bug it be at all, and its bite is easy, the burthen of hosting it, lite.

        This is one of those journey is the destination things. Woah!

        AIDS, A. und andere, ist, in Afreaka, a collection of symptoms grouped under a designer label borrowed from the Kwa.

        It is much easier to understand what AIDS is — and isn’t — when you understand the homo who develops AIDS as a wildly fucking drugjecting partying assterrarium of microbial horrors. After 5-7 years of this he “catches” AIDS (look close, you can see germ X over there behind the rubber tree, conversing with the rectal gonorrhea bug and — ooh! isn’t misteress amoebiasis looking lovely tonight, the donight of nights.

        A homosexual is essentially a ‘you never spunk in the same bloodstream twice’ type of creature. But the media doesn’t doesn’t present him as he presents to the doctor, so the joes have a hard time grasping the concept that AIDS isn’t a black and white but a gray and shifting thing. I’m sure you see the irony there. The fire and brimstone is out of the christians and into the fags, if you recall the eighties, when we were given giant shopping lists of things we couldn’t catch AIDS from touching ourselves on, and how puny immoral were we to fear we could, almost haterlike. Anyone can catch AIDS, Salty! we were lectured. Yes, but we’d have to live like fags, and that, friend, is not easy. It’s hedonism, with all the work that implies.

      6. A. Says:

        Not many intravenous drug users in the mud huts over in Africa, nicht wahr? So warum?

      7. alex Says:

        Natural nigger conditions. Just plain unsanitary everywhere you turn, leading to widespread disease. Some 2-3 dozen symptoms or diseases produce the figures that are packaged and marketed to the Gatesian West as ‘AIDS.’

      8. A. Says:

        Symptoms of what? Obviously you just mean diseases as they must produce the symptoms. So what are the different diseases? As I understand it AIDs weakens the resistance by attacking T-cells, so no one ever died of AIDs, they only died of a disease their body could not longer fight because of AIDs.

        Where am I going wrong?

      9. alex Says:

        That’s it. I’d have to find an article, which I don’t have at hand. But believe it or not the health minster in New SA was essentially right. People die, they just call it AIDS. The point is why is their immune system weak (among the fags)? Why do you need a virus to account for what reckless rectal abuse and just plain crazy living account for just fine. You don’t. The cure for AIDS is not fucking a bunch of crazy drug taking homos.

      10. alex Says:

        I think it’s like this: they only know HIV exists by the presence of antibodies, which are found in incredibly small amounts, and even so, there’s no proof this HIV is CAUSING sickness leading to death.

        Immorality attempting to escape consequences, is all AIDS amounts to.

        Look at it backwards, LOL. Start with the Mencken quote about a man’s opinion being worthless if he’s not free to hold the opposite. Now, imagine the government funding a Dirty-Homos-Clean-Up-Your-Act Campaign, vs browbeating, say, pre-Parky J. Fox into sterning us toward gushing money and luv on our effeminate, troubled brothers o’ sleeve.

      11. alex Says:

        AIDS, whatever that is
        Holocaust, whatever that is

        HIV causing AIDS – official state religious claim
        Gas chambers killing 6million – official state religious claim

        AIDS, like Holocaust, belongs to the realm of marketing & public relations, not science.

      12. alex Says:

        The original name of AIDS was Gay-Related Immunodeficiency (GRID)

        That’s exactly what AIDS is: immune system problems brought on by queers

        - buttfucking huge numbers of buttfuckers who also fuck copious wads of other buttfucks who — what do they do? — they fuck buttfucking buttfuckers
        - smoking, drinking, injecting, dropping, hitting any & every ingestible to the far side of shoe polish
        - fun-running this circuit of insanity like a nonstop Daytona 500

        That’s what AIDS is: immune problems brought on by repeated crazy behavior.

      13. alex Says:

        What I don’t like about these Q-RID fags is summed up in HST’s:

        You buy the ticket, you take the ride.

      14. A. Says:

        So some negress living in a mud hut somewhere in sub-saharian Africa dies of

        buttfucking huge numbers of buttfuckers who also fuck copious wads of other buttfucks who — what do they do? — they fuck buttfucking buttfuckers
        - smoking, drinking, injecting, dropping, hitting any & every ingestible to the far side of shoe polish
        - fun-running this circuit of insanity like a nonstop Daytona 500?

        Okay I do see your point, but if there is no co-relation between HIV and AIDs would you have sex with someone who was HIV positive? Apparently HIV is is always benign so wtf? I suppose one way would be to examine the number of women opposed to men dying in sub-saharian Africa. The men would naturally far out way the women in mortality rates, because the women don’t get involved in butt-fucking and the other stuff as much.

        And Ethopia must have one of the largest AIDs rates due to the level of malnutrition. Really I am not convinced. I need more evidence and not only from the Kwa, but other countries.

      15. Fenrir Says:

        What an intelligent and very brave woman.

      16. A. Says:

        See it wouldn’t surprise me if people were being mis-diagnosed or killed through prescription drugs in the Kwa. The Kwa is a no truth zone, every figure is fudged so you cannot use it for clinical analysis.

      17. john Says:

        I think in Africa any death caused by a combination of three or so deseases is attributed to aids. The population there
        has been growing for decades.

      18. Harry Tuttle Says:

        I did follow that line in the article, Alex – what I meant to say was, God must hate fags so much he appears to be able to sentence them to death with a generic frisson that specifically selects both they and the bonobos without precisely manifesting as a “germ” than can be transmitted by anything less than broad spectrum definition of shittiness as a human being.

        Lots of people have suspected this long before this woman articulated it – that AIDs is a kind of critical mass of a dozen different filthy organisms acting advantageously on a human being who has not merely erred once in choosing a bus seat or accidentally bumped against a toilet handle, rather one who has packed so much crap in a metaphorical and physical sense that they expire from a surrender of their immune system to a completely decadent lifestyle in it’s totality.

        If this theory is correct it means that both the goo smoothie cravers of San Diego and the bipeds of the Congo all have a common factor – they’re a living galaxy of diseases they contract from their whole life gestalt that collapses into a black hole of rotten asshole and interns that ends up killing them like a moral judgement.

        You gotta admit even if God does not exist this would make AIDs similar to one of those diseases in the Old Testament that moves like a shadow over some people’s doors and enters in deliberately where it finds God’s enemies. It’s poetic and somehow fitting. Fags can’t blame a bug located at a specific point in time and space, they can only accept that when your life revolves around shit you also end up drowned by it. As ambiguous and untreatable as wind burn.

      19. A. Says:

        It also seems a little bit of a reach to compare AIDs to the holylie. Anyone with a napkin and a brain can simply do the figures and see the holocaust is a pile of bilge.

        This requires some technical understanding greater than the ability to divide.

      20. A. Says:

        But if those dying in Africa are dying of a combination of diseases why are those diseases not just treated? Fact is their immune system is shot, so wtf is causing that? Butt-fucking and being mal-nourished (when has that not been the case)? Especially when they are HIV-positive before they slip of the mortal coil. And the population might keep on growing, it has a supposed incubation rate of 10-15 or longer years, which means they are never going to die out because of it.

        I would rather this research was based on observations amongst other countries. The Kwa because of the jew-money-principle is just not reliable. Would you sleep with someone who was HIV positive?

      21. The Senator Says:

        “Especially when they are HIV-positive before they slip of the mortal coil.”

        But they aren’t — or at least there is never any reason to think they are. Deaths attributed to AIDS in Africa are so attributed despite the fact that no HIV-antibody test has been performed on the deceased.

        That’s right — in Africa, a diagnosis of AIDS is usually made without HIV testing.

        http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/chrfafrica2.htm

      22. Saddam Hussien(Dear Mr. Ouiji) Says:

        This loser offers no explanation. She should simply acquire the virus and THEN tell us. If not quit the talk. She’s abiologist and THINKS AIDS isn’t real…………… “I’ve never treated an AIDS patient, nor have I worked with HIV in the lab.” and “Second, the data and results contained in the literature are sufficient to cast doubt on HIV.” Yet, she can’t explain why there are countless people dying because they can’t afford treatment in the U.S. Africa and India. This idiot says that shee will not inject herself with HIV because of other agents that could be in the blood. What a cop-out. She knows HIV is real. Why are many poor in India and Africa dying off left and right because they can’t afford help. Malaria isn’t the cause. Malaria is a Mosquito spread disease that the body(particularly Negro) in many cases can develop immunity against for 10 years. It is dangerous mostly for young children. Nigresses even seek to get Malaria while pregnant to pass Malaria killing anti-bodies to their children. However, 90% of Subsaharan Africans(Negroes) die from Malaria AS A result of advanced HIV infection crippling their immunity. Other than that the poarasite goes dormant and doesn’;t kill or the body develops immunity against it. This lady is lying about what she “knows” about HIV. At first, HIV was known as a “Gay White Man’s Disease.” People like Greg Louganis and others that lived relatively clean lives fell mysteriously sick because of HIV. Cocaine does cause HIV to multiply almost literally 1000Xs faster according to Colin Powell. But most illegal and even legal narcotics won’t help anyone ill anyway. The can develop immunity against HIV just as it can with other sicknesses BUT, any overwhelmed immune system just doesn’t work. Nurse’s can been stuck with needles and remain clean. Why? because a healthy lifestyle can assists the body in repelling it and developing immunity. However, some HIV RNA reproduce so heavily that when sicknesses kick in they have the whole body as a scape unto itself. However, it does exist and it isn’t a game.

      23. Outis Says:

        I’ve fucked a lot of chicks, all of them white, and only two or three with so-called “protection”.

        Are there STDs? Of course.

        Is AIDS as serious as the Judenpresse assures us? No.

        It’s no more our concern, if we remain pure, than rocking the vote or never forgetting.

      24. Lawrence Bird Says:

        Heh heh. All it does is remind me of an article on one of the AIDS poster ‘people’ :http://www.fumento.com/specmagic.html

        Yeah, he ‘caught it’ from a woman. Hoo hah!

      25. Timothy Says:

        What kills people in 3rd world countries is what has always killed them:unsanitary conditions,lack of clean drinking water,etc which leads to a weakened immune system.
        AIDS deaths are way overinflated.For instance,when some child dies in Africa from diarrhea it is counted as an AIDS death,when in reality is it usually a case of intestinal worms and parasites ingested via dirty water producing diarrhea in the child until it dies of dehydration.
        The real scandal of the AIDS sham is that it sucks up billions of dollars a year in research funds,hence there is a great stake in maintaining the spectre of the big,bad AIDS bogeyman.

        In short,it’s all a goddamned racket.

      26. GB Says:

        AIDs is nature’s garbage collector.

      27. MST Says:

        Yes, how well I remember the hysteria of the ’80s when we were constantly, and sternly, lectured about how AIDS (I prefer the original, and more correct term “GRID”) was “not just a gay disease.” That poor fuckin’ Ryan White kid was probably glad to die just to be able to stop being a poster boy for a bunch of whiny, I-wanna-fuck-anything-at-any-time-with-no-consequences faggots.

        1987: Will Johnny Depp get HIV from sharing a faggot’s chocolate milk on “21 Jump Street?” Oh, of course not, you big thilly hater and he feels appropriately chagrined for even thinking so when said faggot heads off to the great Glory Hole in the sky (all because that senile ol’ meanie Regan wouldn’t give enough money “to fight AIDS.”)

        But, the $64,000 question is “Does HIV cause GRID?” There is no doubt that “AIDS” is a catchall term for the various afflictions shuffling queers and excess Africans (that would be all of them) off this mortal coil, but that doesn’t mean that HIV couldn’t be at least partially responsible. As far as I know, there haven’t been any experiments done to see if HIV/GRID meets Koch’s Postulate, that a suspected causitive agent must be isolated from a sick individual, purified and then introduced to a healthy individual and then be able to cause the same disease in that previously healthy individual. There are understandably few people lining up for such a trial. However, we may have finally found a use for the so-called “bug chasers.” Yay! This type of work may have been done in primates, but stretching from SIV to HIV may not work.

        Anyway, though there are serious doubts about the veracity of the claim that “HIV causes AIDS” Dr. Culshaw does herself no favors by claiming that since PCR is needed to detect HIV that it couldn’t possibly be causing GRID. There are a host of reasons that HIV couldn’t be causing GRID, but that isn’t one of them. Who cares if something is present in only vanishingly small amounts? Vanishingly small amounts of things can still have a profound effect. Ever hear of botulism toxin? Does this small amount=no effect theory mean that I can be snacked on by rabid skunks with no harm done besides needing a bath? How many influenza virus particles does it take to get you a runny nose and how much would they weigh, do you think?

        She might be a whiz at math and she’s probably even right on the HIV/GRID things but she’s making herself look a little foolish.

        To me, though, the whole argument is beside the point. Even IF the HIV=GRID argument is correct, it doesn’t change the fact that GRID is way behind cancer, heart disease, diabetes, car crashes, nigger/wetback crime and a whole host of other things as a cause of death in this country, yet we spend a gargantuan amount of money to “Fight AIDS!!!!!” every year for a disease that is 100% completely preventable (with the exception of the poor saps who supposedly got it early on thru transfusions, dentists, etc.) soley to placate a tiny minority of sick individuals (with heavy Jew-media backing, natch) who want the freedom to lead a disgusting and unheatlhy lifestyle but don’t want to pay the check when it comes due in the form of an asshole full to the brim with pus*.

        In Africa, it’s the same story. Somehow, and we needn’t look to closely at the “somehow,” it’s all Whitey’s fault that on a continent without a sense of sanitation, practices that make witch burning look rational and an excess population that will fuck anything that can be held down long enough, a disease, or group of diseases, that ravage the immune system pops up to keep the numbers of featherless bipeds in check.

        Go figure.

        *actual story related by a first-year intern.

      28. alex Says:

        I’ll post more on the African AIDS debate when I come across it.

        Duesberg at one point volunteered to be injected with HIV to prove his point.

        However, such willingness doesn’t matter when the press won’t print the truth anyway. Duesberg came to prominence through a Guccione mag, since the so-called mainstream has a vested interest in promoting AIDS, like every other liberal cause.

        If you ask if I would be injected HIV, I’d say, what’s in it for me?

        It’s possible HIV does exist, and does have some minor contribution toward weakening the immune system, but the basic fact is that if you keep your behavior even somewhat under control HIV/AIDS won’t affect you.

        AIDS is a syndrome, that means a collection of symptoms. Symptoms of a multi-diseased immune system. The idea there’s a virus neatly simplifies things, gives both professionals fags and christians grist for their mills.

      29. Igor Alexander Says:

        So on the one hand, we have Duesberg and his ilk claiming that no virus causes AIDS, and on the other, guys like Dr. Robert Strecker claim that HIV does cause AIDS and offer persuasive, albeit circumstantial, evidence that HIV was manufactured in a U.S. laboratory by Jewish communist defector Dr. Wolf Szmuness.

        “Ball of confusion, that’s what the world is today, hey hey…”

      30. Igor Alexander Says:

        I remember mentioning Dr. Duesberg’s theory to a woman I know (she is a fag hag no less), to which she replied, “well, you know, some people deny the Holocaust too.” At this point, I informed that I am rather skeptical about the Holocaust, and the conversation went downhill from there.

      31. alex Says:

        Ha, funny. That’s like when the jews say, “Oy if the most educated nation in the West could turn on us…”

        SLOW DOWN AND THINK IT OVER, YID!

        Gee. If they’re ahead of us in other ways, and, as you say, better educated,

        PERHAPS THEY KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT JEWS WE DON’T.

      32. van helsing Says:

        Damn right it is funny. Didya get in a mention of the Bell Curve before it hit rock bottom?

      33. holting Says:

        AIDS is another one of God’s plagues? Are you kidding me? What God? “God hates queers more than you could ever imagine?” Have you read the Bible? What ever happened to God’s everlasting love for all? I don’t think it ever said: “Love thy neighbor as thyself – except black people, homosexuals, Jews, Asians, Mexicans, Latinos…” Ever think about who Jesus was? He was born in the era of Second Temple Judaism to a Jewish mother and father – he went to temple and synagogue just like every other Jewish person of his time. He was a descendant of David – king of Israel – a southeastern Mesopotamian nation – native to DARK SKINNED PEOPLE. The physical image of Jesus has changed over time, and has come to be a country-bumpkin white guy with a scraggly beard and nappy hair. Get real.

      34. holting Says:

        By the way Linder, its daylight savings time now…. or is that something made up by some random Jewish person that you think you can blame it on?

      35. Stronza Says:

        The best book in the whole world that explains “AIDS” was (unfortunately) written by a conservative Jew (he may be a convert) named Brian Ellison. His book “Why We Will Never Win The War on Aids” was actually banned by the US govt. Fortunately, I got a copy before they were all withdrawn. In any case, that book explains just why AIDS is not caused by some stupid virus.

        It’s the diseased condition of the homosexual or the starved African that causes the marker virus to appear (if there even is one) – not the reverse. A very good book, too, is AIDS, Inc. by (sigh!) John Rappoport. This reporter found that homosexuals back in the 1980s who had socalled GRID disease had countless different sex partners – in the upper hundreds, if I remember correctly.

        AIDS and all socalled infectious diseases are just Nature’s cleanup crew. It is not complicated at all. Behave yourself, live right, quit smearing shit all over your sex organ, and you won’t have to lose sleep over “killer viruses”. AIDS is an invention, a giant industry.

      36. James McElroy Says:

        I’ve known this for 15 years. Another contender for the “Hoax of the 20th Century” award. Funny how ALL of them smell like lox.

      Leave a Reply

      You may use the following HTML tags in your comments.

      <a abbr acronym b blockquote cite code del em i q strike strong>