Once upon a time in Africa: An AIDS Story

Understanding AIDS as a pathway to understanding Covid.

“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”

-Richard P. Feynman

Robert Kennedy Jr.’s book The Real Anthony Fauci hit me like a sledgehammer.

I would tell anyone that would listen to stop what they were doing, put down any other book they were reading, and just read Robert’s book. Thankfully, quite a few did.

I could list at least a dozen things that were absolute revelations that I knew nothing about that included the 1976 fake Swine Flu pandemic, Rockefeller’s capture of the American medical establishment, Tetanus vaccines in Africa that were laced to sterilize African women and so on and so on. I listened to each one of these stories in a stunned daze. How is this possible?

But the revelation that hit me for six was the realisation that the HIV/AIDS story was not true. It’s so untrue that it rises to the level of anti-truth. I will be forever grateful to RFK Jr. for waking me up to the breadth and depth of structural malfeasance that is possible. I wasn’t naïve about malfeasance, but I was naïve about its possibility on a system wide scale within Western democracies.

Through that story I was introduced to Peter Duesberg and have recently finished listening to his book Inventing the AIDS virus (on Audible).

Let me pause for a moment. If you haven’t read RFK Jr.’s book, then it’s likely you have no idea what I’m talking about and are starting to wonder what you are doing here on this tin-foil hatter’s Substack. You might even be wondering if Flat Earth Theory is coming next. I don’t blame you; I was there not that long ago. I’ve watched Philadelphia explain HIV/AIDS to me and never thought for a second that there was anything else to the story.

If, on the other hand you have read the Fauci book, then you realise I’m not crazy and you understand what I mean when I say that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS and that Fauci built the HIV/AIDS/AZT industry as we know it today. It was his crowning achievement until SARS-Cov-2 came along. To you, I strongly encourage you to layer in another round of knowledge by reading Duesberg’s book.

There are two stories that I think today’s truth hunter absolutely needs to come to terms with. They are the 1976 fake pandemic (which nobody disagrees with) and the HIV/AIDS story (that nobody will believe you when you tell them).

I wrote about the 1976 story here. That, I would say is the easier of the two stories to tell.

The swine that created The Swine Flu “Pandemic” of 1976

I wrote about Duesberg also, as merely an introduction to the HIV/AIDS story.

The crucifixion of Dr. Peter Duesberg.

I honestly don’t believe you can fully grasp what they have done to us during the last two years without understanding HIV/AIDS. 1976 showed us the corruption of the system and the possibility of industrial scale malfeasance, but HIV/AIDS built the industry template. Today’s pandemic was built on that template, just at a much larger scale. This pandemic is really HIV/AIDS version 2.0. Bigger, better, and far more dangerous for freedom and civilization. That’s why I am so focused on it.

I believe RFK Jr. when he tells me that the HIV/AIDS story, as we know it, is fake.

I believe Duesberg when he tells me the same thing.

And I also believe Malone when on Rogan he says:

And Bobby Kennedy makes the point that the first real example of cancel culture that we can track is Tony Fauci cancelling the esteemed virologist Peter Duesberg, because he was raising questions about the origin of HIV and its role in the disease called AIDS. I remember when that happened.

-

Yeah, totally. One of the best virologists of his generation, full stop. (referring to Duesberg).

I am speculating now, but I recently realised that what Malone just did in the Rogan interview is not just give a nod to Duesberg, but implicitly acknowledged to a world audience that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.

What makes this even more relevant is that “they” have just begun to gin up HIV fear. It’s to be seen whether they can pull it off on scale, but I think they are definitely going to try. Here is Prince Harry telling us all that’s it our duty to get tested for HIV.

⭐️TellMeSweetLittleLies⭐️ @Intent_B

"Ginger Head" Harry: Every single one of us has a duty to get HIV tests

There is plenty more of this new HIV propaganda starting to surface. This from the BBC recently doing the rounds.

BBlues60 @BBlues60

BBC admits HIV is in Covid vaccines.

Here is Luc Montagnier a while back confirming the same issue regarding the addition of an HIV part. Luc recently passed away. He got his Nobel prize for discovering HIV, so let’s just say he has standing on the subject.

🇨🇦 Honkistan Rules! 🇨🇦 @McloughlinGuy

Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier who was found dead 6 days ago confirmed HIV was added to the C19 vaccines.

Here is an archived link.

Imagine the following conversation, let’s say about 1.5 years from now.

A friend of yours, whose just had his sixth dose (obviously for the latest variant) tells you that he is going to see his doctor to discuss HIV treatments as he has been recently diagnosed with HIV. You look at him a bit strangely as ask “how did you get HIV?” and he say “I have no bloody idea mate, I certainly haven’t been sleeping around, but I did do some research and I found a recent study on The Lancet that says they think that if you’ve had Covid at any point, which I have, then it’s likely to “awaken” the HIV virus or make you more susceptible to it or something. I didn’t quite understand how it all worked, but it’s in The Lancet!”.

I score the possibility of this conversation within the next 1.5 years at about 71.5%.

So, they are trying to set up a new chapter of this pandemic that involves the generation of a new wave of HIV positives that would then naturally lead to the use of anti-viral medication. The evil machine doing what the evil machine does. To help people protect themselves against this next, possible, chapter, we need to now help them also see through the HIV/AIDS fiction. This might prove to be harder than getting them to see through the Covid fiction, and as we know that is no walk in the park.

In this article I want to focus on a specific sub-story of the HIV/AIDS story and that is the African component. It has its own collection of untruths.

First let’s look at RFK Jr.s synopsis of the subject in The Real Anthony Fauci:

Africa’s AIDS Bonanza

With grants from Tony Fauci, intrepid researchers quickly found that the contagion had somehow reached Africa and infected up to 25 million Africans, with no one having taken notice. Researchers, extrapolating from small cohorts with positive PCR results, used murky statistical models to report HIV had infected nearly half the adult population in some nations - and forecast widespread depopulation of the African continent. None of the shrilly predicted depopulation has ever occurred, and most HIV-infected Africans showed no sign of illness. In those who were sick, the infirmities looked very much like the illnesses that doctors had previously diagnosed as malaria, pneumonia, malnutrition, leprosy, bilharzia, anemia, tuberculosis, dysentery, or infection with a grim inventory of pathogens and parasites familiar to doctors in Africa.

Because HIV antibody tests are too costly for widespread use in Africa, the World Health Organization has since 1985 used the “Bangui definition” to diagnose AIDS, based on clinical symptoms. WHO’s enthusiasm for this loose, all-encompassing definition may reflect the early revelation that the AIDS plague loosened purse strings like no other crisis on Africa’s beleaguered landscapes.

The statistical picture of AIDS in Africa, consequently, is a sketchy projection based on very rough computer-generated estimates from the World Health Organization (WHO), built on a highly questionable data pool, dubious assumptions, and grotesque exaggeration. Uncertainty prevails, even in those extremely rare cases when doctors actually performed HIV tests on Africans; many diseases that are endemic to Africa, such as malaria, TB, flu, and simple fevers, trigger false positives. Duesberg and many other critics accused Dr. Fauci, and an opportunistic pharmaceutical industry, of taking this long inventory of ancient afflictions and recasting them as AIDS.

It’s undeniable that African AIDS is an entirely different disease from Western AIDS. Whereas AIDS in Western countries continued to be a disease of drug addicts and homosexuals—with women reporting only 19 percent of US and European AIDS cases—in Africa, 59 percent of AIDS cases are in women, with 85 percent of cases occurring in heterosexuals, and the remaining 15 percent in children. No one has ever explained how a disease largely confined to male homosexuals in the West is a female heterosexual disease in Africa.

“AIDS in Africa looks nothing like AIDS in North America or Europe,” observed Duesberg to me. “Africans were rarely tested with expensive PCR tests, so every unexplained death became ‘AIDS.’”

The clinical symptoms of African AIDS are high fever, a persistent cough, loose stools for thirty days, and a 10 percent loss of body weight over a two-month period. By that definition, a large percentage of Western tourists have AIDS while in Africa. The simple cure is to get on a plane back to New York, where no doctor would dream of bestowing an AIDS diagnosis based on that symptomology alone.

After 1993, WHO added tuberculosis to the definition. Duesberg told me, “It became a garbage pail definition applied to anyone sick with an uncertain diagnosis.”

“Due to compelling financial drivers, in Africa, AIDS is nearly always a presumptive diagnosis, applied without any ‘positive’ reaction to HIV tests,” science journalist Celia Farber told me. “Big Pharma, researchers, clinics, international health agencies beginning with WHO, and local governments conspire to keep this stunningly broad and generic clinical definition of AIDS in Africa,” she explains. “From the beginning it was a signal for funding. They are all in on the joke, because they are all helping themselves by skimming the unprecedented international funding streams that flow to African AIDS relief.”

“AIDS is huge business, possibly the biggest in Africa,” says James Shikwati in a 2005 interview with Der Spiegel. Shikwati is founder of the Inter Region Economic Network, a society for economic promotion in Nairobi (Kenya). “Nothing else gets people to fork out money like shocking AIDS figures. AIDS is a political disease here: we should be very sceptical.”

Former epidemiological director of WHO, Professor James Chin, in his 2006 book, The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology and Political Correctness, admits unambiguously that the AIDS case figures for developing countries were massively manipulated in order to maintain the flow of billions of dollars.

Dr. Rebecca Culshaw, PhD, a former HIV researcher and professor of Mathematical Biology and Population Dynamics at the University of Texas at Tyler, admits that “The paradox of how a disease could cause both vastly different epidemiologies and symptomatic progressions in the First and Third World” was one of the irreconcilable problems that sowed her initial disillusionment with the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy: “The African epidemic looks suspiciously nothing like the American and European epidemic, and closer inspection reveals it likely that this African epidemic is pure fabrication.”

The questions about widely divergent symptomology of this mysterious disease only amplify when we consider that WHO maintains twelve different descriptions of AIDS, depending on national boundaries. In 2003, AIDS activist Christine Maggiore told documentarians:

In 1993, in this country, we adopted a definition that caused the number of AIDS cases to double overnight. And part of that reason was for the first time we’d began counting people as AIDS victims who were not ill and who did not have any symptoms. They had a low T-cell count and that’s [all]. And T-cells are something that can fluctuate a 100 percent in a given day. So based on a low T-cell count that year, the number of AIDS cases doubled overnight. And with that definition, there have been 182,000 Americans who are not ill diagnosed with AIDS, who would not have AIDS if they moved to Canada. Because in Canada, they don’t recognize that T-cell definition as a criteria for having an AIDS diagnosis.

Many US AIDS sufferers can become “cured” by crossing the border into Canada. No other disease is so subject to this sort of nationalism.

I want to digress for a moment and spend some time on the PCR test and Kary Mullis.

To his horror, his PCR process was turned into a test and then weaponised and first used on scale to “diagnose disease” during the HIV/AIDS story and more recently during Covid.

In business you talk about “generating leads” that are “prospects” that you attempt to sell your services to. Imagine you are a plumber, and you write an eBook on “The Top 10 mistakes to avoid when hiring a plumber”. Some people in the market for a plumber might give you their personal details in exchange for downloading that eBook. They are now a “plumbing lead”. You call them and you may or may not get them to do business with you.

Well, the PCR Test is a “lead generator”. It creates leads out of thin air, like magic. Once you get a positive result, you can do pretty much whatever you want with that person such as get them on expensive anti-viral medication (chemo-therapy) or put them under house arrest as they have done today.

Here is Duesberg in “Inventing the AIDS virus” discussing PCR, AIDS and Mullis.

The very ability of retroviruses to survive as dormant genes by attaching themselves to human chromosomes has been exploited for the most sensitive HIV assay yet-the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). This incredibly sensitive technique was invented in the mid I980s by Berkeley biochemist Kary Mullis, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his discovery in 1993. The PCR is a technology that amplifies even the tiniest amounts of any specific DNA sequence, creating enough copies of the desired sequence for detection and analysis. This amounts to finding the proverbial needle of dormant HIV in a haystack of human DNA. But contrary to statements by some HIV scientists, this is not an isolation of the actual virus and does not fulfill Koch's second postulate. It is only the detection of dormant DNA genomes, or fractions of viral genomes, left behind from infections that occurred years earlier. Nevertheless, scientists and journalists alike sometimes mislabel such exhumations of viral fossils as "new, more sensitive techniques" that somehow prove HIV can be found in an ever-greater portion of AIDS patients. Because a few HlV molecules are technically invisible, but millions of HIV molecules are visible, Mullis's PCR technique has become the only practical method to detect viral molecules in all those antibody-positive people in which no virus can be found.

Duesberg again:

Kary Mullis, another former graduate student from Berkeley, achieved international fame for inventing the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) a few years ago. This, ironically, is the sensitive detection technique used by AIDS officials to claim they can find HIV in almost every antibody-positive AIDS patient. Mullis refuses to buy this argument: "I can't find a single virologist who will give me references which show that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS…If you ask a virologist for that information, you don't get an answer, you get fury." Asks Mullis, how could a dormant virus cause fatal AIDS? Biochemistry demands that every biochemical reaction is a consequence of an equivalent biochemical action. How could a virus that can be seen only after a billion-fold amplification be responsible for the fatal biochemical "reactions" that kill AIDS patients?

But even Mullis's logic cannot penetrate orthodox AIDS-think. For example, take the response of a prominent AIDS researcher to Mullis's case against HIV. The incident was a television debate in New York on May 23, 1994, in which Duesberg used Mullis's arguments against HIV. The AIDS researcher's response was a rather unprofessional question, "Isn't he [Mullis] the surfer?". Obviously, in the mind of this mainstream scientist, surfing is not compatible with serious science. Indeed, Mullis is a Trojan horse to the AIDS establishment, adored for his invention of the only technique to detect at least a gene of the elusive AIDS virus, but feared for his outspoken criticism of the virus-AIDS hypothesis.

For his PCR invention, Mullis has won the 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry, making him the third Nobel Laureate to question the "AIDS virus" and the first to belong to the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis. Many scientific colleagues had not previously realized that Mullis questioned HIV's significance, and they now are becoming seriously unnerved by his comments. Although many journalists refuse even to mention his dissenting view, Mullis continues to hammer the AIDS establishment with his outspoken criticisms:

Where is the research that says HIV is the cause of AIDS? We know everything in the world about HIV now. There are 10,000 people in the world now who specialize in HIV. None have any interest in the possibility HIV doesn't cause AIDS because if it doesn't, their expertise is useless.

Australian medical professor Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos has independently questioned the HIV hypothesis since 1988. In June 1993 she and her colleagues from the University of Western Australia in Perth published an article in Bio/Technology that even shocked the HIV dissidents. Their paper proved the HIV test thoroughly unreliable, producing up to 90 percent "false positives" and relying on standards that differ between countries and even between official AIDS laboratories of the same country. It outraged even those faithful to the HIV hypothesis that the fate of thousands of lives, every day, are determined by a test that cannot be trusted. The Papadopulos group has since become the most outspoken medical team to challenge the HIV hypothesis.

Hundreds of other professionals have now lent their names to Thomas's statement, all agreeing on the need to re-open the HIV hypothesis for testing. Many of the scientists propose their own ideas of what causes AIDS. But by far the most compelling case can be made for the notion that long-term drug use is the culprit in most AIDS cases. The growing evidence for this hypothesis is the subject of the next chapter.

Phite Onn @PhiteOnn

@ajacquitaylor @GardeniaHypnot1

One of my readers (thank you Abeille) recently put me onto this Celia Farber article from April 2020 about Mullis and his PCR invention.

Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus?

“It’s as good as that Scientology test that detects your personality and then tells you need to give all your money to Scientology. “

Now, let’s go a bit deeper into the HIV/AIDS story.

Here is Duesberg writing in 1998 (two years after the publication of his book and four years before appearing on Rogan) explaining why HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS.

The AIDS Dilemma

In this paper he listed a collection of unanswered questions. To my knowledge they remain unanswered to this day.

In the meantime, the multibillion-dollar AIDS research effort also proved to be disappointing. Despite unprecedented efforts by thousands of virologists and hundreds of thousands of medical scientists, there are numerous unanswered questions about the AIDS epidemic in America and Europe:

1.    Why would antibodies against HIV (a positive HIV test), which are so effective that leading AIDS researchers cannot detect HIV in most AIDS patients (Gallo, 1991; Weiss, 1991; Cohen, 1993), not protect against AIDS?

2.    Why have doctors and nurses never caught AIDS from over 800,000 American and European AIDS cases - particularly in the absence of a HIV vaccine?

3.    Why are 9 out of 10 AIDS patients males?

4.    Why are about two-thirds male homosexuals?

5.    Why are one-third intravenous drug users?

6.    Why are most AIDS patients 25-49 years old, and why don't teenagers get AIDS?

7.    Why is AIDS new, although HIV is long­ established in the US and Europe?

8.    Why would a new, sexually transmitted disease not have exploded in the millions of heterosexually active Americans and Europeans - just as syphilis once did in medieval Europe?

9.    Why did HIV-positive American hemophiliacs live over twice as long in 1987 as they did in the pre-AIDS era, and why has their mortality increased ten-fold after the introduction of the anti-HIV drug AZT?

10. Why does AIDS manifest in totally unrelated diseases, for example, dementia, diarrhea, and Kaposi's sarcoma?

11. Why do only male homosexuals get Kaposi's sarcoma?

12. Why are thousands of AIDS cases HIV-free?

Each of these questions addresses a paradox of the HIV hypothesis. But there are no paradoxes in nature, only flawed hypotheses.

To solve the AIDS dilemma, and to develop a hypothesis that answers all of these questions, we have considered all available facts of the AIDS epidemic in America and Europe, following the classic procedure described by Cairns: ‘Historically, the first step in determining the cause of any disease has always been to find out if there is anything, apart from the disease itself, that the sufferers have in common. This was true for the infectious diseases, the various dietary and vitamin deficiencies, the many kinds of "natural" and industrial poisonings and so on’ (Cairns, 1978). The scope of our study is limited to American and European AIDS for reasons that will become apparent in this article. African, Haitian, and Asian AIDS have been covered elsewhere.

Let’s now circle back to African AIDS.

Duesberg wrote the following letter to the South African AIDS panel in 2000. In it he goes into the details of why HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS in Africa, but it’s written in such a manner that we mortals can understand it. In essence he was trying to get one African leader (Mbeki) to listen to sense and direct South Africa in a saner and scientifically sounder direction. It almost worked.

The African AIDS Epidemic- Duesberg on AIDS

THE AFRICAN AIDS EPIDEMIC: NEW AND CONTAGIOUS - OR - OLD UNDER A NEW NAME?

From Peter Duesberg to the AIDS panel, 6/22/00

An infectious epidemic is typically diagnosed by scientists and non-scientists by a sudden increase in morbidity and mortality of a population. As a result, the affected population declines significantly, and a relatively immune population emerges. The most readable modern description of such an epidemic is Albert Camus' "The Plague".

Roy Anderson, professor of zoology at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases in Oxford, UK, provides a recent scientific description in a piece entitled "The spread of HIV and sexual mixing patterns". According to Anderson, "The historical and epidemiological literature abounds with accounts of infectious diseases invading human communities and of their impact on social organization and historical events. We typically think of a new epidemic in a "virgin" population as something that arises suddenly, sweeps through the population in a few months, and then wanes and disappears. Indeed, the classical epidemic curve for many respiratory or intestinal tract viral and bacterial infections is bell-shaped, with an overall duration of a few months to a year or so. Figure 4-1 illustrates a well-documented example, the 1665 plague in London, believed to have killed about one-third of the population in a few months."

The seasonal poliomyelitis epidemics from the days prior to the polio vaccine, and the ever new, seasonal flu epidemics are specific modern examples of viral epidemics.

All of these viral and microbial epidemics have the following in common:

1.    They rise exponentially and then decline within weeks or months as originally described by William Farr in the early 19th century. The rise reflects the exponential spread of contagion and the fall reflects the resulting natural vaccination or immunity of survivors.

2.    The epidemics spread randomly ("heterosexually" in the words of AIDS researchers) in the population.

3.    The resulting infectious diseases are highly specific reflecting the limited genetic information of the causative microbe. As a consequence, the viral diseases are typically more specific than those caused by the more complex bacteria or fungi. It is for this reason that the viruses and microbes are typically named for the specific disease they cause. For example, influenza virus is called after the flu, polio virus after the poliomyelitis, and hepatitis virus after the liver disease it causes.

4.    The microbial and particularly the viral epidemics are self-limiting and thus typically seasonal, because they induce anti-microbial and viral immunity and select also for genetically resistant hosts.

By contrast, the following are characteristics of diseases caused by non-contagious, chemical or physical factors:

1.    They follow no specific time course, but one that is determined by the dose and duration of exposure to the toxin.

2.    They spread according to consumption or exposure to toxic agents, but not exponentially.

3.    They spread either non-randomly with occupational or lifestyle factors, or randomly with environmental or nutritional factors.

4.    They range from relatively specific to unspecific depending on the nature of the toxin.

5.    They are limited by discontinuation of intoxication, but not self-limiting because they do not generate immunity.

For example, the American pellagra epidemic of the rural South in the early decades of the 20th century lasted for decades and no immunity emerged, until a vitamin B rich diet proved to be the cure. And it did not spread to the industrial North which had a diet rich in Vitamin B.

Similarly, the rather unspecific American epidemic of lung cancer-emphysema-heart disease-etc. rose steadily, not exponentially, in the 1950s and has lasted now for over 50 years without evidence for immunity.

It did not spread randomly in the population but was restricted to smokers. And it is now slowly coming down as smoking slowly declines.

Likewise, the American and European AIDS epidemics:

1.    rose steadily, not exponentially,

2.    were completely non-randomly biased 85% in favor of males,

3.    have followed first the over-use of recreational drugs, and then the extensive use of anti-AIDS-viral drugs,

4.    do not manifest in one or even just a few specific diseases typical of microbial epidemics,

5.    do not spread to the general non-drug using population.

AIDS manifests in a bewildering spectrum of 30 non-specific, heterogeneous diseases. This is consistent with the heterogeneity of the causative toxins.

There is no evidence for AIDS-immunity in 18 years, but the American/European AIDS epidemics are now coming down slowly as fewer people use recreational drugs.

The above summary indicates that American and European AIDS epidemics exhibit the characteristics of diseases caused by non-contagious, chemical or physical factors NOT viruses.

AFRICAN AIDS IN NUMBERS

Now I will briefly analyze how African AIDS measures up with "the historical and epidemiological literature" described by Anderson and others.

My analysis is based on statistical numbers from the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, the United Nations and the U.S. Agency for International Development & the U.S. Census Bureau (USAID).

According to the WHO's Weekly Epidemiological Records, the whole continent of Africa has generated between 1991 and 1999 a rather steady yield of 60,000 to 90,000 AIDS cases annually, on average about 75,000 (WHO's Weekly Epidemiological Records since 1991).

Based on the last available data from South Africa, 8,976 cases were reported there between 1994 and 1996 by the WHO, corresponding to about 4,500 cases per year (WHO's Weekly Epidemiological Records 1998 and 1995).

The WHO does not report how many of these cases are deaths, how many survive with, and how many recover from AIDS.

However, it is evident from the WHO data that the African AIDS epidemic is not following the bell-shaped curve of an exponential rise and subsequent sharp drop with immunity, that are typical of infectious epidemics. Instead, it drags on like a nutritionally or environmentally caused disease, that steadily affects, what appears to be only a very small percentage of the African population.

Given a current African population of 616 million, and an average of 75,000 African AIDS cases per year, it follows that only 0.012% of the African population is annually suffering or dying from AIDS. Likewise, only 0.01% of the South African population was suffering from AIDS between 1994 and 1996, based on the 4,500 annual cases and a population of approximately 44 million. This means that the new African AIDS epidemic only represents a very small fraction of normal African mortality.

Based on a current average life expectancy for Africa of about 50 years, the annual mortality of 616 million people is 12.3 million. Thus, even if we assume that all AIDS cases reported by the WHO are deaths, the African AIDS epidemic represents only 75,000 out of 12,300,000 deaths per year, or 0.6% of all African mortality. Thus, African AIDS is certainly not one of the historical microbial epidemics described by Camus and Anderson (see above). Since no immunity has emerged in over a decade, the restriction of African AIDS to a relatively small fraction of the large reservoir of susceptible people indicates non-contagious risk factors that are limited to certain subsets of the African population.

In view of the very small share (0.6%) that the African AIDS epidemic seems to hold on Africa's total mortality, the question arises whether the mortality claimed for AIDS is in fact new mortality, that can be distinguished from conventional mortality, or whether it is a minor fraction of conventional mortality under a new name.

To answer these questions, we must try to distinguish African AIDS diseases from conventional African diseases (i) clinically as well as (ii) statistically.

THE LONG LIST OF AFRICAN AIDS DISEASES CAN NOT BE CLINICALLY DISTINGUISHED FROM THEIR CONVENTIONAL COUNTERPARTS

According to the WHO's Bangui definition of AIDS and the "Anonymous AIDS Notification" forms of the South African Department of Health, African AIDS is not a specific clinical disease, but a battery of previously known and thus totally unspecific diseases, for example:

1.    weight loss over 10%,

2.    chronic diarrhea for more than a month,

3.    fever for more than a month,

4.    persistent cough,

5.    generalized pruritic dermatitis,

6.    recurrent herpes zoster (shingles),

7.    candidiasis oral and pharyngeal,

8.    chronic or persistent herpes,

9.    cryptococcal meningitis,

10. Kaposi's sarcoma

Since these diseases include the most common diseases in Africa and in much of the rest of the world, it is impossible to distinguish clinically African AIDS diseases from previously known, and concurrently diagnosed, conventional African diseases. Thus, African AIDS is clinically unspecific, unlike microbial diseases, but just like some nutritionally and chemically caused diseases (see above).

AFRICAN AIDS IS TOO SMALL TO BE DETECTED STATISTICALLY AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF NORMAL AFRICAN MORBIDITY, MORTALITY AND GROWTH RATES

We have already pointed out that it is almost impossible to be certain about the existence of a new African AIDS epidemic that claims only 0.6% of African mortality, particularly since all AIDS defining diseases are profoundly conventional African diseases.

The same is true if we try to determine the effect of the presumably new African AIDS epidemic on the current growth rates of Africa. The annual population growth rates of Africa have been between 2.4 and 2.8% per year since 1960.

As a result of the high African growth rates, the population of the whole African continent has grown from 274 million in 1960, to 356 million in 1970, to 469 million in 1980, and to 616 million in 1990. By comparison the annual growth rate of the US is only 1% and that of Europe is only 0.5%.

Because of the numerical discrepancy between the relatively high African growth rates (2.4 to 2.8%) and the small annual deficits of these growth rates to be expected from AIDS mortality (0.6%), an African AIDS epidemic cannot be identified or confirmed based on its effect on the high African growth rates. In view of this, and the complete overlap between the complex battery of diseases that define the AIDS epidemic and their conventional counterparts, it appears that the presumably new AIDS epidemic can be neither distinguished epidemiologically nor clinically from conventional African diseases and mortality.

DECEPTIVE REPORTING OBSCURES ANALYSIS OF AFRICAN AIDS

To all of us who have been subjected to the American AIDS rhetoric, and indeed the rhetoric of our first meeting in Pretoria last May, about the "catastrophic dimensions" of African AIDS (Washington Post, April 30, 2000), the healthy African growth rates come as a big surprise. Take as an example of this rhetoric President Clinton's recent designation of AIDS as a "threat to US national security ... spurred by US intelligence reports that looked at the pandemic's broadest consequences, particularly Africa ... [and] projected that a quarter of southern Africa's population is likely to die of AIDS ..." (Washington Post, April 30, 2000).

In view of this rhetoric, it would appear that neither President Clinton nor the "U.S. intelligence" are aware of information available to the American Agency for International Development & the U.S. Census Bureau. Indeed, the USAID & Census Bureau seem to have noticed the discrepancy between the facts and the rhetoric and are trying to hide it - the possible reason why "the largest demographic impact of AIDS" is cautiously described either as just a relatively small reduction in "life expectancy" or in expected population growth (not loss!): "Differences in population size between the AIDS-adjusted and the non-adjusted scenarios are often substantial ... By the year 2010 ... South Africa will have 5.6 million fewer people ..." than expected based on current growth rates ("HIV/AIDS in the Developing World", U.S. Agency for International Development & U.S. Census Bureau, May 1999). A "catastrophe" 10 years down the road - and a "threat to U.S. national Security" now!

The alarming tone of WHO's joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, "AIDS epidemic update: December 1999" (UNAIDS December 1999), announcing that Africa had gained 23 million "living with HIV/AIDS", because they are "estimated" carriers of antibodies against HIV, since the "early 80s" is equally surprising in view of information available to the agency. Neither the WHO nor the United Nations point out that Africa had gained 147 million people during the same time in which the continent was said to suffer from a new AIDS epidemic. Likewise, South Africa has grown from 17 million to 37 million in 1990, and to 44 million now. In the last decade South Africa has also gained 4 million HIV-positive people. Thus, South Africa has gained 4 million HIV-positives during the same decade in which it grew by 7 million people.

Moreover, although the 23 million "estimated" HIV-antibody positives are said to be "living with HIV/AIDS" by the WHO, the agency does not offer any evidence for morbidity or mortality exceeding the modest numbers, i.e. about 75,000 cases annually, reported by the its Weekly Epidemiological Records (see above).

The agency's estimates of HIV-positives are indeed just "estimates", because according to the 1985-Bangui definition of African AIDS as well as to the current "Anonymous AIDS Notification" forms of the South African Department of Health - no HIV tests are required for an AIDS diagnosis.

In addition, the WHO promotes the impression of a microbial AIDS epidemic, by reporting African AIDS cases cumulatively rather than annually (WHO's Weekly Epidemiological Records since the beginning of the epidemic). This practice creates the deceptive impression of an ever growing, almost exponential epidemic, even if the annual incidence declines.

It would follow that the estimated increases in African HIV antibody (!)-positives do not correlate with decreases in any African population. On the contrary, they correlate with unprecedented simultaneous increases in the country's populations - hardly the "catastrophe" imagined by the Washington Post and propagated by the WHO and the American AIDS establishment. But this deceptive AIDS propaganda biases a scientific analysis of African AIDS by all those who are not aware of the facts.

CONCLUSIONS:

(1) The African AIDS epidemic fails all criteria of a microbial or viral epidemic:

(i) It is steady, i.e. about 75,000 cases per year since the early 1990s, instead of growing exponentially into the large reservoir of 617 million susceptible people, as would be typical of a new viral or microbial epidemic;

(ii) It is not self-limiting via immunity within weeks or months, as is typical of a microbial and particularly of a viral disease. Instead, it appears to maintain for years a rather steady share of African morbidity and mortality.

(iii) It is clinically exceedingly heterogeneous totally lacking any specificity of its own, unlike all conventional viral and even bacterial diseases. In conclusion, the African AIDS epidemic does not have even one of the specific characters of a viral or microbial epidemic.

(2) Since the suspected African AIDS epidemic of an average of 75,000 annual cases can neither be identified as a new epidemic

(i) clinically because of its total lack of a clinical identity, nor

(ii) numerically because of its small share of the total African morbidity and because of undetectable effects on the rapid growth of the African population,

the primary scientific task of our AIDS panel will now be to determine whether there is in fact a new epidemic of AIDS defining diseases in Africa, or whether a fraction normal morbidity and mortality has been renamed AIDS. The answer to this question would be the first order of business for all AIDS prevention and treatment programs considered by President Mbeki. To find this answer, I second the proposal from an African AIDS researcher published 13 years ago, "Clinical epidemiology, not [HIV] seroepidemiology, is the answer to Africa's AIDS problem" (Konotey-Ahulu, 1987).

(3) The African statistics of AIDS and HIV antibody-positives confirm Mbeki's suspicion about discrepancies between the African and American AIDS epidemics (Mbeki's letter to U.S. President Clinton, Washington Post, April 19, 2000):

In Africa 23 million HIV-positives generate per year 75,000 AIDS patients, ie. 1 AIDS case per 300 HIV-positives.

But in the US, 0.9 million HIV-positives (WHO, Weekly Epidemiological Record 73, 373-380, 1998) now generate per year about 45,000 AIDS cases (Centers for Disease Control, 1999), ie. 1 AIDS case per 20 HIV-positives.

Thus, the AIDS risk of an American HIV-positive is about 15-times higher than that of an African! Since over 150,000 healthy (!) HIV-positive Americans are currently treated with DNA chain-terminating and other anti-HIV drugs (Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998), and since American HIV-positives have a 15-fold higher AIDS risk than African HIV-positives, President Mbeki must be warned about American advice on "treatments" of HIV-positives.

(4) The discrepancies between African AIDS and infectious disease, and the discrepancies between the high AIDS risk of American compared to African HIV-positives can both be readily explained by the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by non-contagious risk factors and that HIV is a harmless passenger virus (Duesberg, 1996; Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998).

According to this hypothesis the African AIDS diseases are generated by their conventional, widespread causes, malnutrition, parasitic infections and poor sanitation as originally proposed by leading AIDS researchers including Fauci, Seligmann et al.

This hypothesis also offers a simple explanation for the "heterosexual" distribution of AIDS in the African people, a question also asked by Mbeki in his letter to President Clinton (see above). Malnutrition, parasitic infections and poor sanitation do not discriminate between sexes. By contrast, American AIDS would be caused by recreational drugs consumed by millions and anti-HIV drugs prescribed to about 200,000 including 150,000 still healthy HIV-positives (Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998). The non-random, 85%-male epidemiology of American AIDS reflects the male prerogative on hard recreational drugs (heroin, cocaine) and the wide-spread use of drugs as male homosexual stimulants (Haverkos & Dougherty, 1988; Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998).

In the light of this hypothesis the new epidemic of HIV-antibodies would simply reflect a new epidemic of HIV-antibody testing, introduced and inspired by new American biotechnology. This technology was developed during the last 20 years for basic research to detect the equivalents of biological needles in a haystack, but not to "detect" the massive invasions of viruses that are necessary to cause ALL conventional viral diseases. But this technology is now faithfully but inappropriately used by thousands of AIDS virus researchers and activists to detect latent, ie. biochemically and biologically inactive HIV or even just antibodies against it!

The same technology also provides job security for other virologists and doctors searching for latent, and thus biologically inactive, viruses as their preferred causes of Kaposi's sarcoma, cervical cancer, leukemia, liver cancer, and rare neurological diseases - without ever producing any public health benefits.

(5) President Mbeki must also be warned about Dr. Joe Sonnabend's answer to the president's question about the epidemiological discrepancy between the "heterosexual" AIDS epidemic in Africa and the non-random, 85%- male epidemic in the U.S.

According to Sonnabend's hypothesis, Africans acquire HIV heterosexually, because they simultaneously suffer from a long list of diseases, including "tuberculosis, malaria, other protozoal infections, bacterial diarrheal infections, pneumonia, plasmodium, Leishmania" etc. However, the very low AIDS risk of an African HIV-positive, compared to an American, calls this hypothesis into question. If the Sonnabend-hypothesis were correct, African HIV-positives should develop AIDS much more readily than their American counterparts. But the opposite is true. In fact, according to Sonnabend most Africans should already have AIDS by the time they pick up HIV "heterosexually".

Moreover, the Sonnabend-hypothesis does not resolve the discrepancy between relatively high share of children from 0-14 years in African AIDS, ie. 7%, compared to the 1% share of AIDS by their American counterparts. According to the WHO, "AIDS in children is an important phenomenon in many African countries, whereas it is relatively rare in industrialized countries."

Again, AIDS in children is not compatible with "heterosexual transmission of HIV" while suffering from Sonnabend's bewildering list of diseases. But AIDS in children is very compatible with malnutrition, parasitic infection and poor sanitation. Therefore, President Mbeki must be warned against treatment of these children with DNA chain-terminators and other anti-HIV drugs as suggested by Sonnabend's hypothesis.

After I read this, I remembered the headlines from years earlier about how Mbeki had lost his mind. Even today he is described as a “HIV/AIDS denialist” by the Wiki propaganda machine. HIV/AIDS denialism - Wikipedia

And here in 2001 from The Guardian (off course).

How Mbeki stoked South Africa's Aids catastrophe | World news | The Guardian

But the country's top medical researchers, high ranking civil servants, Aids campaigners, and doctors and nurses forced to turn patients away from underfunded clinics say that Mr Mbeki has done irreparable damage that will cost many lives in a country with the highest number of HIV positive people in the world: 4.7m, one in nine people. Most will be dead within a decade.

Obviously, their catastrophic death projections never happened.

If you are still reading, what can I say…thank you! You probably agree with me that understanding this history is vitally important for understanding today and for helping others understand what is going on.

Here is the documentary House of Numbers that will make a lot more sense having read what you’ve just read. You can see and hear from many of the key players and listen to Mullis and Duesberg directly.

The HIV/ AIDS Story is Being Rewritten (houseofnumbers.com)

I want to give the last word to Duesberg, who I think of as the Galileo of our time. This is a small section from the above documentary.

The Cardinals “beat” Duesberg and they “beat” Galileo, but the truth always surfaces. One man was proven right, and the other man will be also.

Oh, and someone tell Bono.

Further Reading:

PRESIDENTIAL AIDS ADVISORY PANEL REPORT 2001

"HIV does not cause AIDS" - David Rasnick

HIV Does Not Cause AIDS | The BMJ