“Needle ZERO” again; or, HIV pops up magically out of nowhere
Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/11/15
“More than 40 young children have been infected with HIV at a hospital in Uzbekistan, officials have said” (BBC News: Uzbek children in ‘Aids outbreak’, by Martin Vennard).
According to UNAIDS data for 2006 (2006 Report on the global AIDS epidemic —
A UNAIDS 10th anniversary special edition), the overall prevalence of “HIV” in Uzbekistan was 0.2% (0.1-0.7); in 2007, it was 0.1% (<0.1-0.3; 2008 UNAIDS Report). Wherefrom, one wonders, came the HIV that infected those children?
For comparison, the prevalence is reported as 0.6% in North America and 0.3% in Western and Central Europe, in none of which regions there have been general epidemics among the heterosexual population, only gay men and injecting drug abusers are at risk [“WHO SAYS that WE’VE BEEN VERY WRONG about HIV and AIDS? (Clue: WHO = World Health Organization)”, 10 June 2008]. The Uzbekistan rate is about as low as reported from anywhere; it’s even low compared to the rest of its region (0.8% in Eastern Europe and Central Asia as a whole). How did HIV get to that hospital to infect those babies?!
“Unsafe blood supplies and contaminated equipment are often blamed for spreading the infection”: But from where came the infected blood? How was the equipment contaminated? According to mainstream sources, “HIV” doesn’t remain infectious for long when it’s outside bodily fluids; so to transmit HIV via needles or other “contaminated equipment”, the original carrier must have been in contact with that equipment only hours earlier. What equipment was used within a few hours by all those babies PLUS someone else? That postulated carrier ought to be readily identifiable. Or, did all those babies receive blood, and from the same batch?
“The infections in Uzbekistan are just the latest case of mass contamination in a health facility in the region. In August, a court in Kyrgyzstan convicted nine medical workers of infecting 24 children with HIV, while last year 21 medical workers in Kazakhstan were found guilty of infecting dozens of babies. . . . Aid workers say the stigma surrounding HIV/Aids [sic] and the atmosphere of secrecy means that many outbreaks of hospital-acquired infection do not get reported. In July this year, Jimmy Kolker, a senior UN official on HIV/Aids, called on Central Asian governments to record and share their information on cases. He was speaking at a meeting in Uzbekistan, which was discussing how to tackle a regional epidemic of HIV among women and children” [emphasis added].
AIDS, let’s not forget, was a phenomenon of Kaposi’s sarcoma, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, and Candida (yeast infection, thrush), experienced by those who heavily abused drugs by injecting them and by gay men whose lifestyle included a great range of unhealthy practices including abuse of drugs, non-injected as well as injected. Twenty-five years later, “HIV/AIDS” is being regarded as a threat to every population, as though “HIV” could pop up anywhere at all, no thought needed as to how it might have got there; and the media cheerfully parrot without comment an “expert’s” statement about a regional epidemic among women and children!
That’s just one of a whole range of absurdities that has followed the move from the empirically experienced phenomenon of AIDS to the theory-driven assumption of “HIV/AIDS”. The most implausible explanations are now offered for misinterpreted phenomena, including the conclusion-jump that HIV-positive babies of HIV-negative mothers must have been infected by contaminated equipment or “unsafe” blood. As against that conclusion-leap, there stand a number of facts:
1. At the same clinics, needle-sharing addicts test “HIV-positive” LESS often than those who don’t share needles (sources cited at p. 86 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS).
2. Newborns typically test “HIV-positive” at a much higher rate than that in the population as a whole (Tables 25-27, pp. 98-99, ibid.).
3. The overwhelming majority of “HIV-positive” babies revert spontaneously to HIV-negative within a year (idem., ibid.).
Points 2 and 3 in particular are some of the many data that show “HIV-positive” to be a highly non-selective, non-specific indicator of physiological stress or immune activation. There’s also overwhelming evidence that “HIV-positive” is not a contagious condition, and that “HIV” doesn’t correlate with “AIDS” (The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory and numerous references cited there).
Newborns test positive as a result of stresses associated with birth,
not because they’re infected with “HIV”.
For more about “HIV-positive” babies in particular, and the persecution of unfortunate medical personnel who happen to work in hospitals where babies are tested for HIV, see:
HIV/AIDS in Italy — and “NEEDLE ZERO”, 11 October 2008
HIV: It must have been transmitted by BITE!, 24 April 2008
Babies infect mothers; Crazy theory ruins lives, 12 April 2008
HIV-positive babies are not virus-infected, 16 February 2008
HIV and breastfeeding again, 13 February 2008
Chew on this, 7 February 2008
Twins attract their mother’s HIV, 12 January 2008
HIV-positive children, HIV-negative mothers, 25 November