Rapid results suggest end of malaria and end of “AIDS”
Rasnick scores at Wall Street Journal Health blog with African analysis
Marcus Cohen’s solution to African AIDS implemented with Laurie Garrett’s support
The expansion of Western interest in African ailments other than “AIDS” in the last few years is now bearing copious fruit. In other words, AIDS fantasy is being replaced by medical reality, and funding is being redirected to places where it can make a positive impact very quickly.
In malaria already many children’s lives are being saved, rather than the money going to torment unfortunate Africans with a misdiagnosis of “AIDS” when Westerners see the ravages of their hunger and poverty, followed by useless and harmful drugs delivered at ever lower cost by well meaning but seriously under-researched global power activists such Bill Gates and Bill Clinton.
Thus the New York Times today (Jan 31 Thu) salutes the success of malaria measures, crediting a new Chinese drug (artemisinin) made from wormwood and the distribution of millions of mosquito nets with dramatic numbers of lives saved in a story by Donald McNeil, Nets and New Drug Make Inroads Against Malaria.
New WHO estimates of amazing progress – a drop in the number of children dying from malaria of 60% in two months in Rwanda, for example – suggest a potential to wipe out malaria in Africa within five years, though how reliable the numbers are remains a small question, given the shameful record of the backroom boys of the international organizations responsible for mapping the African “AIDS” pandemic, UNAIDS and WHO (see Behind the U.N.’s HIV Numbers).
But the rapid improvement seems believable since it is repeated in many countries, and the scourge of malaria – the biggest global killer of children, perhaps one million a year – may even be on the way to extinction if the trend holds.
“This is extremely exciting,” said Dr. Michel Kazatchkine, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. “If we can scale up like this everywhere, we should be able to eliminate malaria as a major public health threat in many countries.”
McNeil notes, however, the fact that Ghana showed a drop of 34 per cent malaria deaths among children in a country where funding was limited, nets in short supply, and drugs were charged for, raises some unanswered questions.
The gathering of statistics in poor countries remains problematical so even the basic number of one million children dying of malaria every year is a guesstimate, McNeil notes.
Even the most commonly cited mortality figure — one million deaths of children a year — has always been no more than an educated guess.
“AIDS” will drop too
One thing remains sure, however, to all serious students of the research literature. All good science so far indicates that the global “AIDS pandemic” is a monstrous chimera, and that the recent embarrassing lowering of the estimate of the total number of people in the world who are reckoned “HIV positive” (this means HIV antibody positive) by the UN is merely a first step towards the complete truth about the pandemic, which is that it doesn’t exist as such and is produced by the spread of the AIDS meme and the relabeling of every other illness it induces in the minds of observers.
The real picture is undoubtedly this: the entire world population group of “HIV positives” (now a revised 33.2 million rather than 39.5 million) is as healthy as the rest of us – unless they are scoring positive due to a test cross reaction to some other disease, of course – but merely included in the largely meaningless and substantially inaccurate mapping of people in whom an inert virus has already been defeated by their immune systems.
Why AIDS figures will be revised downward again
This false mapping is exaggerated by the inaccuracy of HIV tests which can react with malaria antibodies to give a false positive, among scores of other cross reactions, the most important being TB.
This introduces the interesting possibility that as malaria dwindles, so will the “AIDS” numbers.
A similar effect is likely to be seen as better nourishment and hygiene help to curb TB, a prominent African scourge in countries where large sections of the population are underfed. TB is widespread even among healthy people – half the population in tropical Africa harbor TB antibodies, as well as a significant proportion of the rest of us – but it is normally under control and effectively dormant if the immune system is strong, just as HIV is thoroughly repressed in anyone with a healthy immune system.
The infectiousness of residual TB is virtually nil in normal circumstances, just as it is in the case of HIV, which clearly is effectively non-infectious in healthy heterosexual people, contrary to all the cacophony of official claims.
Rasnick scores a hit
An accurate view of the African predicament was posted by noted HIV dissident David Rasnick as a well phrased summary comment following a post by Jacob Goldstein (Take Global AIDS Estimates With a Grain of Salt) on the Wall Street Journal Health Blog earlier:
Is AIDS devastating and depopulating Africa or anywhere else? The evidence says NO! and apparently the UN and others have started taking note of this.“Can Africa be saved?” the cover of Newsweek asked as far back as 1984 (1), reflecting the old Western belief that Africa is doomed to starvation, terror, disaster and death. This was repeated two years later in an article in the same journal in a story about Aids in Africa. The title set the scene: “Africa in the Plague Years” (2). It continued: “Nowhere is the disease more rampant than in the Rakai region of south-west Uganda, where 30 percent of the people are estimated to be seropositive.” The World Health Organisation (WHO) confirmed “by mid-1991 an estimated 1.5 million Ugandans, or about 9% of the general population and 20% of the sexually active population, had HIV infection” (3). Similar reports were repeatedly published during the last 15 years, declaring as much as 30% of the population doomed to premature death, with dire consequences for families and society as a whole? The predictions announced the practically inevitable collapse of the country in which the world-wide epidemic supposedly originated.
Today, however, one reads little about Aids in Uganda because all the prophesies have proved false, as evidenced in the ten-year census of September 2002 (4). Summing up, the Uganda Bureau of Statistics says, “Uganda’s Population grew at an average annual rate of 3.4% between 1991 and 2002. The high rate of population growth is mainly due to the persistently high fertility levels (about seven children per woman) that have been observed for the past four decades. The decline in mortality reflected by a decline in Infant and Childhood Mortality Rates as revealed by the Uganda Demographic and Health Surveys (UDHS) of 1995 and 2000-2001, have also contributed to the high population growth rate.” In other words, the already very high population growth in Uganda has further increased over the past 10 years and is now among the highest in the world (5).
Even if Uganda has so far escaped the apocalypse that was predicted in 1984, the popular media continue to inform us that the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa has suffered massive devastation and depopulation as a result of two decades of AIDS. Notwithstanding the claims of the media, it is extremely difficult to document an Africa AIDS catastrophe that some have compared to the European plague of the Middle Ages.
A new AIDS epidemic was claimed to have emerged in Sub-Saharan Africa in 1984 (6-11). In sharp contrast to its America and European namesakes, the African AIDS epidemic is randomly distributed between the sexes and not restricted to behavioral risk groups (12-14). The African epidemic is also a collection of long-established, indigenous diseases, such as chronic fevers, weight loss (alias “slim disease”), diarrhea and tuberculosis (15-20). In addition, the African AIDS-defining diseases differ from the American/European AIDS diseases significantly in their prevalence among AIDS patients. For example, the predominant American/European AIDS disease, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, is almost never diagnosed in Africans (21, 22).
According to the WHO, the African epidemic increased from 1984 until the early 1990s, similar to the American/European epidemics, but has since leveled off to generate about 75,000 cases annually ((23) and back issues). (By way of comparison, the plague epidemic of London in 1665 had eliminated 1/3 of the population with plague-specific symptoms in a few weeks to months  and the flu epidemic of 1918 eliminated 20 million in one season (24).
By 2001, Africa had reportedly generated a cumulative total of 1,093,522 AIDS cases (23). But, during this period the population of Sub-Saharan Africa had grown (at an annual rate of about 2.6% per year) from 378 million in 1980 to 652 million in 2000 (25). Therefore, a possible, above-normal loss of 1 million lives to AIDS is statistically hard to verify for two reasons: 1) the loss would be dwarfed by the overwhelming, simultaneous gain of 274 million people (the equivalent of the population of the USA), and 2) the African AIDS-defining diseases are indistinguishable from conventional African morbidity and mortality (26).
Because of the many epidemiological and clinical differences between African AIDS and its American/European namesake, and because of the many uncertainties about the statistics on African AIDS (27), both the novelty of African AIDS and its relationship to American/European AIDS have recently been called into question (27-35). Indeed, all available data are compatible with a perennial African epidemic of poverty-associated diseases under the new name AIDS (16, 19).
Because the WHO decided in 1985 to accept AIDS diagnoses without an HIV-test, there is no reliable documentation for even an HIV epidemic in Africa (27, 36). Such presumptive diagnoses were approved because the cost of the HIV-antibody test is prohibitive for most Africans. As a result, there are huge discrepancies in African AIDS statistics. For instance, based on WHO information, the Durban Declaration claimed in 2000 that, “24.5 million…are living with HIV or AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa”. However, the WHO had reported no more than 81,565 new cases AIDS for the whole African continent in that year (obtained by subtracting the cumulative total of 794,444 in 1999 from the cumulative total of 876,009 in 2000) (37, 38).
David Rasnick, PhD.
A slam dunk, it would appear, to any thoughtful reader who can somehow manage to uproot the AIDS meme “HIV=AIDS” from his or her mind. Rasnick’s references were given in full to drive the points home:
Alas, we wonder how many serious readers saw this rather neat summary of why the African picture is such obvious evidence of a global “AIDS” boondoggle.
Marcus Cohen’s 10 year solution to African AIDS
The independent medical columnist at the Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, Marcus Cohen, whom we introduced to the full dimension of the HIV=AIDS debacle a while back, ended up writing ten columns on the topic of HIV=AIDS and the evidence that it is a false paradigm.
In a fine perception Cohen came up with the true solution to the African AIDS dilemma in his commentary, AIDS in Africa: Medical Neocolonialism?, which is that we should first build up the health infrastructure on the continent, and then see what if any “AIDS” might remain after Africans were well nourished and cared for medically without rushing to give them the chemotherapy of antiretrovirals:
Again for the record: My reports on NY’s Office of Professional Medical Conduct in Townsend (they began in 2001 and are ongoing), and my four columns in Townsend about censorship in medicine (Aug./Sept. through Dec. 2004) include many instances where theories on disease causation in vogue were dead wrong, where treatments introduced into community practice were later subjected to rigorous trial and proven harmful, where the majority of physicians and medical researchers clamped down dogmatically on free debate over appropriate treatment, where research clinicians with approaches new to or different from the corpus of accepted wisdom were ridiculed and denied funds to pursue and publish their studies.In light of these instances, and there is in fact a lengthy list of them, eventually acknowledged by the mainstream,10 why should theories about the cause and treatment of AIDS be exempted from reexamination? Why – without question – should the AIDS establishment be handed “blank checks” on defining and managing AIDS and its therapy?
What is there in the nature of AIDS that accords Western governments and non-governmental organizations the right to “dictate” to sovereign African governments policy on controlling AIDS and priorities on healthcare spending?
Morally, the constructive course to follow in sub-Saharan Africa on AIDS would be for the developed nations of the world to provide or lend money to African countries: leave these countries to move forward with desperately needed improvements in sanitation, to rebuild infrastructures that bring adequate medical care to citizens afflicted by poverty-related diseases, to relieve conditions that breed malnutrition (which perpetuates susceptibility to the many illnesses that have ravaged Africa for centuries).
Above all, first wait and see if such improvements lower the death rates among Africans. Then, if the alarming rise in deaths reported in recent years doesn’t abate, consider HIV as a possible reason, and lend money on the stipulation that it must be used to block the spread of AIDS. Then, but only then, get on with the condomizing of sub-Saharan Africa, of every “underdeveloped” nation on the globe where AIDS has manifested.
Books have been published on why the more likely course is the one that Western governments and non-governmental organizations have already shamelessly, evangelically taken,11 the one that promises profits for the US and a sprinkle of other high-tech countries through what is essentially a medical form of neocolonialism, the one that portends an immense disaster for black Africans, especially women and children. Note well in this connection: in university studies where Africans clinically diagnosed with AIDS (according to the Bangui definition and its variants) are tested serologically for HIV, the majority of the test results prove antibody-negative!12
Cohen is one of the few impartial independent medical columnists to see clearly what is happening in HIV=AIDS, perhaps because of his extensive experience in the politics of cancer, where for many years alternatives to mainstream treatment have been suppressed with prejudice rather than evaluated on their merits, as he describes in the first paragraph. The full body of Marcus Cohen’s work at the Townsend Letter is worth reading through for its judicious view of HIV=AIDS and of medical prejudice in general.
When AIDS is not infectious
Here we will sign off with the latest indication of the specious nature of the “global AIDS pandemic”, a study released from the Swiss National AIDS Commission this week which has caused a flutter in the paradigm hen coop.
As these reports – AIDS experts: Unprotected sex OK for some, – Researchers reveal ‘astounding’ HIV study – and others indicate, the Swiss have pointed out that HIV antibody positive patients being treated with antiretrovirals do not pass on the virus.
Geneva – Swiss Aids experts said on Thursday that some people with HIV who are on stable treatment can safely have unprotected sex with non-infected partners.The Swiss National Aids Commission said patients who meet strict conditions, including successful antiretroviral treatment to suppress the virus and who do not have any other sexually transmitted diseases, do not pose a danger to others.
Jay Levy and other paradigm loyal researchers and activists responded swiftly and indignantly to this revelation with the usual alarmist claims, but it seems possible that the discussion will bring home to careful readers the fact, well established in a large study by Nancy Padian in the nineties, that HIV is effectively non-infectious among healthy heterosexuals whether they take ARVs or not, a research finding which explodes the main pillar of the notion that we have a “global AIDS pandemic”.
The proposal, published this week in the Bulletin of Swiss Medicine, astonished leading Aids researchers in Europe and North America who have long argued that safe sex with a condom is the single most effective way of preventing the spread of the disease – apart from abstinence.“Not only is (the Swiss proposal) dangerous, it’s misleading and it is not considering the implications of the biological facts involved with HIV transmission,” said Jay Levy, director of the Laboratory for Tumor and Aids Virus Research at the University of California in San Francisco.
Small wonder that Levy and other knowledgeable folk are quick to resist any light thrown on the matter. The entire ideology of HIV=AIDS is based on the notion that it is an infectious disease, when its non infectiousness has been staring everyone in the face from the birth of this remarkably infectious meme. Exposure of this falsity threatens to bring down the whole house of cards once it is appreciated by the press and public.
In fact, once HIV is widely known to be effectively non-infectious in normal circumstances ie in heterosexual sex of a conventional nature, the level of funding from Congress, which now promises to rise to $50 billion at the urging of some members, rather than the paltry $30 billion advocated by President Bush in his desperate attempt to clean up his legacy, seems likely to dwindle to a dribble.
Does “AIDS” deserve less money?
A wholesale reallocation of public money away from “AIDS” towards more realistic and responsive areas such as malaria, TB, cancer and heart attacks, which kill so many more people than “AIDS”, however, is probably not what AIDS researcher Daniel Halperin had in mind when he greeted the New Year in the New York Times with his suggestion that maybe it took more than its fair share: Putting a Plague in Perspective
Some have criticized Mr. Bush for requesting “only” $30 billion for the next five years for AIDS and related problems, with the leading Democratic candidates having pledged to commit at least $50 billion if they are elected. Yet even the current $15 billion in spending represents an unprecedented amount of money aimed mainly at a single disease.Meanwhile, many other public health needs in developing countries are being ignored. The fact is, spending $50 billion or more on foreign health assistance does make sense, but only if it is not limited to H.I.V.-AIDS programs.
Last year, for instance, as the United States spent almost $3 billion on AIDS programs in Africa, it invested only about $30 million in traditional safe-water projects. This nearly 100-to-1 imbalance is disastrously inequitable — especially considering that in Africa H.I.V. tends to be most prevalent in the relatively wealthiest and most developed countries. Most African nations have stable adult H.I.V. rates of 3 percent or less.
Many millions of African children and adults die of malnutrition, pneumonia, motor vehicle accidents and other largely preventable, if not headline-grabbing, conditions. One-fifth of all global deaths from diarrhea occur in just three African countries — Congo, Ethiopia and Nigeria — that have relatively low H.I.V. prevalence. Yet this condition, which is not particularly difficult to cure or prevent, gets scant attention from the donors that invest nearly $1 billion annually on AIDS programs in those countries.
What did Anthony Fauci at NIAID think of that piece we wondered, and wondered again when it was followed by another report from London by AP’s Maria Cheng, saying that other AIDS researchers agreed that the funding preference for AIDS was a little lopsided:
Experts Call for Rethinking AIDS MoneyJan 18, 2008, London: “We have a system in public health where the loudest voice gets the most money,” said Dr. Richard Horton, editor of Lancet. “AIDS has grossly distorted our limited budget.”But some AIDS experts argue that cutting back on fighting HIV would be dangerous.
“We cannot let the pendulum swing back to a time when we didn’t spend a lot on AIDS,” said Dr. Kevin De Cock, director of the AIDS department at the World Health Organization. “We now have millions of people on treatment and we can’t just stop that.”
Still, De Cock once worked on AIDS projects in Kenya, his office just above a large slum.
“It did feel a bit peculiar to be investing so much money into anti-retrovirals while the people there were dealing with huge problems like water and sanitation,” De Cock said.
In fact, it now seems that many senior AIDS players are a little ashamed about how much of the public purse they have commandeered:
Halperin recently wrote a commentary in The New York Times on the imbalance and said he was astounded by the response. Most were positive, he said, with many AIDS experts agreeing it was time to re-examine spending.
But the truth is that AIDS money has anyway gone directly or indirectly to many other health programs in Africa, so not all of it is being wasted on delivering toxic mismedications to unsuitably grateful natives, courtesy of Bush and the two Bills.
U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Mark Dybul told the House Foreign Relations Committee last year that the AIDS money contributes, directly or indirectly, to a wide range of nutrition, TB, malaria, women’s health, clean water and education programs.(Manchester Guardian:Fight Looms Over Global AIDS Program)
One way or another, it seems, happily, that the Marcus Cohen Solution to African AIDS is being implemented.
Laurie’s good influence
Interestingly, Laurie Garrett in her article The Challenge of Global Health in the Jan/Feb Foreign Affairs a year ago came to much the same conclusion about first spending more on infrastructure combating African health problems, although she was referring to its impact on AIDS ie the need for spending on infrastructure before delivery of ARVs could be effective everywhere in Africa.
Unfortunately, the hazel eyed (for an extreme close up of the pleasing features of this hardworking medical correspondent, check our photo by clicking on it twice to expand it to the full), strong minded ex-Newsday reporter who became a much prized author of books on The Coming Plague and other alarmism predicting the imminent downfall of Western civilization in the face of mutating viruses, expanding air transport and broken health bureaucracies and infra structure in faraway places around the world (see earlier posts) has long been one of the most prominent hosts of the HIV=AIDS meme, which took occupation of her neural networks twenty three years ago and has apparently never been disturbed by any ray of light or impulse from the part of the brain normally activated by skepticism in a good reporter.
But paradoxically, Laurie’s line of thinking in this case, where she was considering the right thing to do in regard to African AIDS, is perfectly in line with the paradigm dissent she has resisted for twenty years. And she has taken the microphone on its behalf, urging spending on infrastructure as a priority in Africa whenever she has been on stage since, so in that respect she is now a very good influence in avoiding the very worst effects of the conventional belief paradigm she credits so unthinkingly.
When it all will end, knows God
With all agreeing that building up African health infrastructure is a top priority, the outlook for African AIDS has never been rosier. The chances that in general African health will improve and “AIDS” numbers will dwindle even further are very good indeed. Over the long term, this might lead to the final downfall and replacement of this scientifically laughable paradigm, which the scientific literature contradicts from top to bottom.
But somehow we doubt it, since surely the scientists of HIV=AIDS and their fellow traveling bureaucrats at NIAID and executives at the drug companies involved will ascribe the ultimate defeat of the global pandemic of “AIDS” to the delivery of the ARVs for which Congress is now anxious to provide $50 billion.
Given that the reputation of science itself will hang in the balance if this appalling affair comes to light, perhaps this is all to the good.
The heroic Mbeki is departing
Whether in the interim large numbers of hapless black Africans will be rescued from being the unfortunate recipients of harmful AIDs drugs is of course another question. Since President Mbeki’s power seems to have survived the troublesome setback of losing his party leadership to a rival recently, one noticeably without his intellectual qualifications, presumably he will continue his effort to discreetly brake distribution of these noxious and uncalled for medications despite the rabid efforts of South African activists to force his hand. His presidency is up in 2009, however.
One day, we confidently predict, Mbeki will be considered a heroic figure in South African history – indeed, in world history – for having the inclination to look into the matter for himself, rather than trust to expert advice or inadequate staff, and then take a stand against AIDS ignorance despite its great influence in South African politics.