THE AIDS DEBATE: SOME GENERAL POINTS

I am listing (below) the web-pages of the three medical reviews that (for me) opened the can of worms which constitutes the debate on AIDS:-


Mounting anomalies in the epidemiology of HIV in Africa: cry the beloved paradigm:

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/downloads/Std144intro.pdf



Let it be sexual: how health care transmission of AIDS in Africa was ignored:

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/downloads/Std148main.pdf



Heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa: an empiric estimate:

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/downloads/Std162stats.pdf

I have recently also noticed this media release and review:-HIV risk assessment based on false assumptions:

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/pr141.htm

Establishing valid AIDS monitoring and research in countries with generalized epidemics:

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/downloads/art_ijsa1_04.pdf



These reviews appear, without any satisfactory scientific refutation, to have been unceremoniously buried by the medical community - and it would not be the first time that medics have, at the expense of patients’ lives, deliberately ignored sound scientific research in order to maintain personal reputation, to preserve establishment positions and to protect the profits from certain drug sales.

There are medical forums (such as the one provided by the BMJ) where doctors are clearly involved in a raging debate about all aspects of AIDS. Amongst these forums, I noticed that there has been a study which claims to undermine the theory that medical injections have caused widespread AIDS transmission - the validity of this study is subsequently brought into serious question by the medical criticisms of another doctor, but the author of the original paper then refuses to answer these medical criticisms and ‘contents’ himself by engaging in some ‘ad hominem’ attacks on his critic...

My general understanding is that there exists:

1. No general medical agreement about AIDS.

2. Considerable opposition to the theory that HIV causes AIDS - since no adequate test, which proves this link, has ever been devised. The respected researcher, who, in 1987, initially cast doubt on the HIV-AIDS link, was thereafter refused funding and sidelined by the medical establishment. HIV could be a symptom of several serious diseases. If the link between HIV and AIDS is uncertain, so then is the theory of a ‘contagious’ AIDS virus and also the effectiveness of the current direction of AIDS-prevention campaigns.

3. No agreement on a single definition of AIDS - a confusion which calls into question the true number of AIDS sufferers in Africa, but which does not obscure the fact that millions of Africans are dying from some form of illness. It has been proposed that the African sickness, now termed AIDS, encompasses a number of serious pre-existing diseases (eg. tuberculosis and hepatitis C) which are epidemic, but ignored - and that this is possible because most African AIDS sufferers do not receive an AIDS test of sufficient quality to conclusively diagnose AIDS. It is even claimed that anti-retro-viral drugs could be dangerous for many of the so-called AIDS sufferers.

My personal conclusion is that ‘AIDS’ (in Africa) is caused by a massive scale of medical malpractice which, whilst not necessarily affecting general population growth, is certainly continuing (post-colonially) a destruction of African health, African societies and the African continent. By the way, I do criticize Africans - for their naivety in trusting the ‘magic’ of the improperly-implemented medical procedures of Westerners. Even in the rich West, there is concern about the validity of compulsorily-funded state health-care programs - after all, is the UK a country of healthy people? I would suggest that, in the UK, the healthiest people could well be fresh African immigrants who have just landed at Heathrow airport. One must simply open one’s eyes and look around.