wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

continued . . . .

These and other paradoxes proves that AIDS is not an infectious disease. It's a syndrome of immune malfunction illnesses that existed before AIDS was "discovered" and defined. it occurs in people who are prescribed poison medicinally, and or abused recreational drugs. In Africa, the native diseases of that continent are being classified as AIDS, as Charles L. Geshekter and others demonstrated.

In my view, the greatest paradox is the widespread ignorance of this syndrome, this late in the day.

references:

See Duesberg in Journal of the National Academy of Sciences
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/bginterview.htm
http://www.duesberg.com/about/pdbiotech93.html
http://www.communicationagents.com/emma_holister/2004/09/13/myths_of_aids_and_sex.htm

Both sides of this debate, please note:

Hiv is not infectious. see Padian et al. it takes 1000 acts of sex to transmit the harmless HIV virus.

The AIDS-defining diseases in Africa differ than those in the US and Europe. see Charles L. Geshekter. the accounts for it being a heterosexual disease in Africa, while it's predominantly a homosexual disease in the US.

In the US, gays who are promiscuous are forced to use amyl nitrates and nitrite inhalents to fascilitate anal sex. those drugs are powerful immune suppressants that cause---as one would expect---Karposes sarcoma (cancer in the lungs).

Examples of sex-linked diseases are prostate cancer, cervical cancer, and breast cancer. They occur 100% in one sex and 0% in the other.

All non sex-linked infectious diseases will break out of their original risk groups and equalize among the sexes after a matter of 1-2 years. Same for the diseases that define the syndrome----ie infectious agents do not cause A sets of diseases in one continent, and B sets of diseases in another continent. Not 30 yrs after the epidemic!!

continued . . . .

buyer beware

From Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/2001/aidsinafrica/cover4.html

read it and weap:

What he likes best is dry sex. In parts of sub-Saharan Africa, to please men, women sit in basins of bleach or saltwater or stuff astringent herbs, tobacco or fertilizer inside their vagina. The tissue of the lining swells up and natural lubricants dry out. The resulting dry sex is painful and dangerous for women. The drying agents suppress natural bacteria, and friction easily lacerates the tender walls of the vagina. Dry sex increases the risk of HIV infection for women, already two times as likely as men to contract the virus from a single encounter. The women, adds Chikoka, can charge more for dry sex, 50 or 60 rands ($6.46 to $7.75).

the other thing to consider in Africa is the fact or "Dry sex" google it and when you gain the knowledge of what it is and what it does to teh Vaginal mucosa in terms of destroying this EXTREEMLY effective and natural barrier to disease, you wil understand why Africa is having so many public health crises. (and again , the fear mongers do NOT factor in the denial factor re: the widespread bisexual and "in the closet " homosexual community in Africa and Muslim societies in general. This can account for most of the so called "hetero pandamic"

No you dont really have to worry, Africa is a differngt case as anyone that has considered the lack of reporting on hidden homosexual sex (becasue of cultural denial ) wil realize as well as the weight of enormous other types of public health and infectious disease issues in Africa. Its impossible to give you responsible advice here in this thread. I am in no fear at al from heterosexual sex, but that is becasue I have educated myself on the biology and in gynecology and urology as well as esexually transmiktted diseases. You should Too! I advisew the use of spermicides and even something like Biotene is very effective as well as a normal healthy vaginal ph. KNOWLEDGE is more effective than any condom. REMEMBER that. Any one that tells you anything else is just trying to keep you in ignorance and fear.

no not true
africa is full of hetro hiv

Heterosexual unprotected sex is not to be worried about then? I don't do any drugs, the worse I do is I am in a monogamous relationship with my boyfriend but I don't like to use any barriers, I don't have to worry then?

Yes its a shame that the fear mongers almost 30 yeasr after starting this AIDS hysteria have continued to make heterosexuals fear HIV they keep talking about a pandemic that has never happened, and wll never happen. The facts are that homosexual unprotected sex where men's immune systems are exposed to the seminal fluids of a great many men over short periods of time (with the requisite immune suppression innate in the secretions themselves) through the intestine without digestion (which is where the body easily absorbs foreign substances after digestion) carries this risk. HIV is not the disease we should all be worried about.. MINDFUL of... but not obsessed with. And the money thrown away at it is a real scam.

Tell that to my sister. She is a neurotic nut that thinks if anyone is having unprotected sex, they might have AIDS and she doesn't want them to eat at her house or drink out of her glasses because she thinks she will get AIDS from them.

The New York Medical Society has a reading room on 103st and 5th ave it has a day wher it is open to the public. it has many scientific Journals and books , I went there and did my research and I am not worried about HIV at all. I suggest people become familiar with biology, immunology and such .. its facinating and will make heterosexuals breathe a sigh of relief from this type of hysteria.

Yes O either they are lieing to us that the blood supply is safe (which they say) or.........could it be that they are using that leap of logic to keep us in fear ?
The way "experts" continue to spout fairy tales as demonstrated in the above posts by Gary shows that there is more going on here that feeds Laurie's vested intrests

if anyone bothers to do a little bit of research on the biochimesty and immunology of semen , you will find out that it contains very powerful immune suppressing agents, that are employed to facilitate pregnancy. Females have adapted to this over the course of heterosexual reproduction for the past billion years, This adaptation is necessary to become impregnated by foreign cells, as well as to carry a child that has different Dna within her body. Males have not. This is a major biochemical incompatibility that can plague male /male sexuality. This is no judgment on the sexuality itself but rather a recognition of the little known immune suppresing qualities of semen.

If they aren't waiting 3 months to test the blood and are passing it out, then it probably isn't safe. Someone could have had unprotected sex with someone who has AIDS or HIV unknowingly and donated blood the next day. If it is not tested 3 months later, then someone could get it from a blood transfusion. Sorry, but that's the facts.

umm they are SUPPOSED to screen the blood
then they argue that they cant really tell if HIV is present until after 3 months
blood is NEVER kept over several weeks.
so your explanation has not addressed my question.
So tell me O how do you gurantee the safty of the blood supply.. or is simple logic escaping you and everyone else in this issue where emotion rules over reason. On malaria I advise people here to look at the statistics on how many children die of Malaria. They cant "change their sexual practices " to prevent this deadly disease. so what is a more important public health issue?

BTW, for those who raised polio and chicken pox, you can read the truth about those diseases here:

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/gk/Polio%20Awareness%20Day%20-%20Medical%20Myths%20Die%20Hard.html

and here:

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/gk/CHICKEN%20POX.html

Oh, Califano (@13), pleeeeeease. don't bring us back to the dark ages. if you're just trying to play the Devil's advocate, then at least be creative.

BTW, if anyone wishes to learn the truth about chicken pox and polio, respectively, then read my articles on the subject at:

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/gk/CHICKEN%20POX.html

and

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/gk/Polio%20Awareness%20Day%20-%20Medical%20Myths%20Die%20Hard.html

or grab the PDFs from:
http://www.vaclib.org/basic/gk/pdf/CHICKEN%20POX--WHY%20CHILDREN%20DIE.pdf

and

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/gk/pdf/Polio%20Awareness%20Day%20-%20Medical%20Myths%20Die%20Hard.pdf

you're welcome!

Laurie Garrett has been scare mongering on the emerging virus mania since she worked for Newsday. She was rewarded for that work with her current gig.

The news about this vaccine trial cancellation validates the Peter Duesberg toxin theory, and the thousands of HIV disident scientists. That being that HIV is a harmless passenger. See www.virusmyth.com

Contrary to Laurie's claims, there have been thousands of HIV positive's who sero converted. There's your "natural immunity". Pro virus HIV has never been isolated. only antibodies to it have been detected. AIDS occurs only in high risk groups, and is still highest in males----after almost 30 years!!! This and many other paradoxes are ignored by Garrett and her drug company friends. Zero progress is a hallmark of a wrong paradigm.

Thanks for the info David, I was not aware.

Thank you, Carolyn. Ground Zero is a military term which means the center of the target or bulls-eye, where the bomb will be dropped.

Is that what you meant, Andrea? That we're back to the point where we drop the bomb? Or did you mean we're back to the begining, or square one, a board game term?

And plaese could you inform all of you journalist co-horts that there is a difference between the two metaphors? Thanx.

Malaria is wicked...more broadly spread than HIV/AIDS, easier to treat and PREVENT.

http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.2550337/k.DE5F/Malaria_Initiatives_of_The_United_Methodist_Church.htm

So the trial was canceled because it isn't safe for humans, which was discovered by "field trials" in Africa...and these were done on what? More Monkeys? The interviewee said that more "people" got sick and even died. Sounds like this trial's been deemed unsafe for American Humans, the idea of protecting humans in Africa from over-reaching pharmas with a discredited idea and a few million bucks doesn't occur to anyone? Please explain how this is considered ethical?

Califano

nice. Katrina too? to punish us for bush??

okay, well, i have been busy, but i have been listening at home and talking to my radio!

the CFR is a great org. so i support Laurie.

btw. this talk of billions of dollars...

the NATIONAL PRIORITIES PROJECT estimates that the war costs the usa $341 million/day.

so if we switch one month's war dollars - say 30 x $341 million = $10.6 billion, wouldn't that help?

and would that mean we would have to shorten our war efforts by a month - because we couldn't afford to pay for it?

if not, why not?

if you don't agree with the *idea* that we should switch one month of war effort for $10 billion dollars on vaccine research - whether feasible or not - then what does that say about you?

because i think it's a good idea.

but once again, too late and too long. darn

#10--not certain. It's not chicken pox, though. Annnnnnnd, while we had polio on the ropes, it has made some comeback.

Comment on English Usage:

We aren't at "Ground Zero," we're at "Square One."

Michael,

they are supposed to screen the blood before giving it to anyone for AIDS.

Isn't that a relief though to know that you could know if you have HIV within 3 months of shared needles or unprotected sex better than not knowing for years?

There is not going to be vaccine/cure for AIDS... because AIDS IS Mother Nature's cure for errant human behavior.

AIDS "hysteria"? Are you serious? Malaria what?

If it takes 3 months to tell if some one has been exposed to the HIV virus... then how can ANYONE guarantee the saftey of the BLOOD SUPPLY?
Where there is contradiction and the logic does not follow, I feel like a sheep being led to slaughter.

What indeed is the last disease that scientists' have cured? Anyone know? What measles? Chicken Pox? Polio???

I've been saying this about Salk's methods since the beginning of HIV and his death was real shocker that knocked the whole thing out of the picture.

What pandemic? a BILLION dollars spent on developing a vaccine? How many deaths from malaria (which is the real pandemic ) could have been prevented with all that cash. This AIDS hysteria is really a drain on much more vitally important public health issues

This is just the continuous AIDS rip-off by the pharmaceutical companies which shouldn't be companies but government labs. Hasn't anyone else picked up on the fact that the pharma cos have weaned us to believe that we can "live with" diseases. The catch phrase, "living with [you fill in the disease] is a pharmceutical gag to make billions as they do keeping us with the disease and using their expensive drugs to be able to "live with" this disease and have a "normal" life. Well WE DON'T WANT TO LIVE WITH [fill in the disease]!! Get it? We need cures and it's time some investigating the pharma cos in this area. To top it off the quality of the drugs are really poor with so many side effects and negative results sometimes.

I think they should absolutely not cancel vaccine testing. I am certain there are many people in the last stages of this disease that would be willing to volunteer.

A related link that might be of interest

http://grouppekurosawa.com/blog/2008/07/end-of-aids-part-one

Ms. Garrett,

Is it still 3 months that it takes to determine if someone has the antibodies of HIV from the date of possible infection or has that time period shortened in the last 6 years?

I don't know what to think about this. If we can find a cure, that would be fantastic and there are probably many people whom would be willing to be guinea pigs for this.