GAYnocide in San Francisco
Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/04/04
In “Predicting rates of ‘HIV-positive’ — and racial cleansing” (2010/03/14), I pointed out that Washington DC was setting out on an unwitting campaign of racial cleansing: testing everyone for HIV and administering toxic drugs to all “HIV-positive” people, irrespective of their state of health, would lead to a disproportionate number of African Americans being killed by the toxic drugs, since black people test “HIV-positive” far more often than others.
Now San Francisco is setting out to cleanse itself of gay men in the same manner:
“City endorses new policy for treatment of H.I.V.” (2 April 2010, Sabin Russell)
“San Francisco public health doctors have begun to advise patients to start taking antiviral medicines as soon as they are found to be infected . . . . The new, controversial city guidelines, to be announced next week by the Department of Public Health, may be the most forceful anywhere in their endorsement of early treatment against H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS. . . . Behind the policy switch is mounting evidence that patients who start early are more likely to live longer, and less likely to suffer a variety of ailments — including heart disease, kidney failure and cancer — that plague long-term survivors.”
As I’ve pointed out before, perfectly healthy people take longer to be killed by toxic drugs than people who are already ill. Testing “HIV-positive” can result from a huge variety of different conditions. Among gay men, one prominent cause may be the practice of rectal douching, which can damage the intestinal microflora that constitute a significant arm of the immune system, acting in particular to control fungal infections — see Tony Lance’s hypothesis of intestinal dysbiosis and his presentation at RA 2009, now available in video format (most conveniently on YouTube).
People who test “HIV-positive” AND have symptoms of illness are surely less healthy than people who test “HIV-positive” and do NOT have symptoms of illness. Up to now, therefore, the less healthy people are, the more immediately they have been put on antiretroviral treatment, and therefore they have died sooner from the drugs’ “side” effects than those who start HAART while they are more healthy. We already know that the majority of adverse events among people on HAART are “non-AIDS” events — “side” effects of the treatment that result in organ failure [NIH Treatment Guidelines, 29 January 2008, p. 13; ; p. 21, November 2008].
The first thing that any “HIV-positive” person should do
is to try to discover WHY they are testing “HIV-positive”:
Have they recently taken antibiotics? Have they recently had surgery? Been pregnant? Had an anti-tetanus shot? A flu shot? Do they eat healthily and eschew douching? And so on. Almost any unusual physical condition appears able sometimes to stimulate a positive “HIV” test — certainly the use of “recreational” drugs and thereby probably the intake of significant amounts of other drugs as well.
The “variety of ailments — including heart disease, kidney failure and cancer — that plague long-term survivors” do NOT plague long-term non-progressors. Those adverse events were never suffered by AIDS patients in the 1980s, that has happened only since the introduction of antiretroviral drugs. Those ailments — “non-AIDS events” as the NIH Treatment Guidelines classes them — plague long-term HAART-treated “survivors”.
“Studies suggest that in the early years of infection, when a patient may show few signs of immune system failure, the virus is in fact causing permanent damage that becomes evident later.”
“Studies suggest” that only because it is assumed, without any direct evidence, that “HIV” somehow damages every cell in the body — magically, since it has never been found in any cells to any significant degree. Demonstrably “infected” people’s CD4 cells, the purported primary target, are “infected” at a rate of much less than 1%, after all (references cited at p. 176 in Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus).
“For instance, in older patients who finally start taking the drugs, the effects of chronic inflammation take their toll.”
Re “older”: Bear in mind that everything about HIV/AIDS is at a maximum in early middle age, 35-50. There is no indication at all of the postulated latent period, and the mortality of PWAs (People With AIDS) does not increase with age, even as mortality from every other known cause increases dramatically with age above the middle years. In 2004, for example, the mortality of PWAs ≥65 was 1.8% whereas that at ages 25-34 was 1.7%, at 35-44 3.2%, at 45-54 3.8%, and at 55-64 2.6% [How “AIDS Deaths” and “HIV Infections” Vary with Age — and WHY, 15 September 2008; HAART saves lives — but doesn’t prolong them!?, 17 September 2008; No HIV “latent period”: dotting i’s and crossing t’s, 21 September 2008; Living with HIV; Dying from What?, 10 December 2008]
The “chronic inflammation” is a pure guess. Since it has never been discovered just how “HIV” supposedly kills the immune system, a popular guess nowadays is that it must cause chronic inflammation, chronic stimulation of the immune system, which then by some unknown mechanism destroys itself — even though an earlier speculation that AIDS is an autoimmune disease turned out to be wrong. The logic of “chronic inflammation” is analogous to the invention of the term “immune restoration syndrome” to describe the finding that recovery of CD4 counts and diminution of “viral load” was often accompanied by severe illness or death on the part of the fortunate patient whose treatment had been so successful.
Bear in mind, too, that these speculations about chronic inflammation and the like are largely based on observation of HAART-treated individuals, or at least individuals who are not only “HIV-positive” but also in poor health, because most healthy untreated “HIV-positive” individuals are not being monitored. Long-term non-progressors or elite controllers have remained perfectly healthy for as long as a quarter century while “HIV-positive”, and since they are healthy, their existence as “HIV-positive” has never come to official attention. By contrast, it is beginning to be noticed that HAART produces premature aging [“Another kind of AIDS crisis”, David France, 2009/11/01].
“Dr. Diane V. Havlir, chief of the H.I.V./AIDS division at San Francisco General Hospital, said the new policy was already in effect for her patients. Although a decision whether or not to take the medicine rests with the patient, all those testing positive for H.I.V. will be offered combination therapy, with advice to pursue it.”
How many of her patients have had the opportunity to hear the reasons offered by Rethinkers for not starting HAART?
“The turning point in San Francisco’s thinking may have been a study in The New England Journal of Medicine on April 1, 2009, that . . . found that patients who put off therapy until their immune system showed signs of damage had a nearly twofold greater risk of dying — from any cause — than those who started treatment when their T-cell counts were above 500.”
Exactly. Those who were ill “from any cause” when they started HAART were twice as likely to die as those who were not ill when they started taking the toxic drugs. What a surprise!
“When the first combinations of AIDS drugs came out in 1996, the thinking was ‘hit early, and hit hard.’ But as patients battled nasty side effects, like diarrhea and disfiguring shifts in body fat, therapy was deferred until T-cell counts fell as low as 200. Today, with safer drugs, quick viral suppression is back in fashion.”
“Safer” drugs does not mean safe, of course. Just read the NIH Treatment Guidelines.
“The field is moving, inexorably, to earlier and earlier therapy,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes for Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He called San Francisco’s decision “an important step in that direction.”
Connoisseurs of bureaucratese will recognize the passive voice of “The field is moving, inexorably” as the typical maneuver designed to disclaim responsibility for decisions being made or influenced by the person who deploys the passive-voice statement. “Mistakes were made” is a common enough example; they just happen, no one committed them.
And this “inexorable” move is actually opposed by some highly qualified HIV/AIDS experts like “Jay Levy, the U.C.S.F. virologist who was among the first to identify the cause of AIDS”, who commented that “It’s just too risky”; “The new drugs may be less toxic, . . . but no one knows the effects of taking them for decades”.
“San Francisco’s decision follows a split vote in December by a 38-member federal panel on treatment guidelines. Only half of the H.I.V. experts gathered by the Department of Health and Human Services favored starting drugs in patients with healthy levels of more than 500 T-cells. . . . The risks of early treatment — giving powerful drugs to people at low risk of disease — could outweigh the ‘modest predicted benefit’ . . . . Dr. Lisa C. Capaldini, who runs an AIDS practice in the Castro district, also has strong reservations. . . . [Although] today’s drugs are a vast improvement over earlier therapies, the program, she said ‘is not ready for prime time.’”
But San Francisco pushes ahead,
“advising” everyone to get tested
and “advising” all “HIV-positive” people
to start treatment immediately,
thereby preparing for
genocide of gay men in San Francisco
genocide of African Americans in Washington DC
This entry was posted on 2010/04/04 at 3:20 pm and is filed under antiretroviral drugs, experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV varies with age. Tagged: Anthony Fauci, Diane V. Havlir, immediate antiretroviral treatment, Jay Levy, Lisa C. Capaldini, San Francisco. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.