Russian petition

A comment  to my post on “Progress in Rethinking AIDS”  mentioned a petition by a Russian group. That group had organized an Alternative HIV/AIDS Conference in 2008 in Ekaterinaburg. One of the organizers, Irina Sazonova, has sent the following furter information.

(I recall that Russian TV had given excellent coverage  to the Alternative HIV/AIDS Conference in Vienna in 2010 organized by Uta Santos-König and Christian Fiala).

One of the members of the Russian group sent the following:

“This is petition, which made up of HIV + people with whom I corresponded and organized in http://vk.com/vichnet http://vk.com/spida_net
Four years ago, I and Nadezda Hramova (she also performed at our conference) offered to meet HIV + victims of AIDS medicine.
They organized yet two conference (correct to say meeting HIV + ) , there was Ageev, Avdusin and Dmitrevskij. I do not participate, because while I had a holiday and I was in Hungary.
Yes, this resolution contains mostly our resolution from the Ekaterinburg Conference.

Unfortunately, now I can not now made translation.
importantly there is:

1. Cancel, repealed the law of the Russian Federation dated March 30, 1995 № 38 – FZ “On the Prevention of Spread of the disease caused by the human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV ) ” due to the absence of infectious AIDS epidemic based on coined the term HIV and illegitimacy its application in the framework of the Constitution of the Russian Federation .
2 . Initiate the establishment of an independent commission to study the facts refuting immunodeficiency virus nature and the recognition of insolvency theory of AIDS.
3 . Prohibit the use of chemicals in ARV treatment regimens affected persons and their use as prophylaxis because of their devastating effects on the human body.
4 . Prohibit testing for HIV existing test systems due to the unreliability of their results , remove from the dispensary of all patients registered on the books early HIV infection , and encourage them to a comprehensive survey of the state of health clinics and other medical institutions of the Russian Federation.
5 . Discontinue the AIDS centers , usurping the function of punishing , to compel the inhabitants , including a healthy , highly toxic poison to violent drugs whose work does not lead to the preservation of human health and the destruction of families and threatens the well-being of society as a whole .
6. Prohibit any advocacy on HIV / AIDS epidemic in the media.

https://secure.avaaz.org/ru/petition/Predsedatelyu_komiteta_GosDumy_RF_po_ohrane_zdorovya_Kalashnikovu_SV_Prekratit_genocid_provodimyy_pod_vidom_borby_s_lzhi/?twEHUgb
I signed and send my colleagues and friends. If you think it possible to sign, subscribe please! Tell, please, to all our friends that this right resolution (very solid and accurate petition).”

Another member of the group added, in an e-mail to David Crowe:

“David Yes, Of course, it is the same group and we all are very grateful to Irina Mikhaylovna Sazonova and Vladimir Vladimirovich Ageev (professor, pathologist), Andrey Dmitrievskiy (a journalist) and others for their support, for their courage, for the fact that they are not afraid to express their opinion in the country, although their lives may be in danger. After the conference in Yekaterinburg the HIV dissidents idea became very popular in Russia, people, mostly of course, victims of AIDS industry, wake up and started fighting. Irina Mikhailovna is the person who saved a lot of people, lot of children from poisoning with AZT. There are some local organizations that support us. We are very glad that you are also supporting us.”

Race, HIV/AIDS, peer review

Reading recently a critique of peer review reminded me of the experience I had with the DuBois Review: Social Science Research on Race [1], and it also reminded me that I continue to regard the race-associated epidemiology of “HIV” as a salient Achilles’ Heel of HIV/AIDS theory.

The mainstream has completely avoided, refused, to face an inescapable dilemma: If HIV/AIDS theory is correct, that “HIV” spreads primarily by sexual intercourse and secondarily via infected needles, then adults who become “HIV-positive” did so in one of those ways. If an identifiable social or ethnic or racial group is always “HIV-positive” more than other groups, then the members of that group are more carelessly sexually promiscuous or more addicted to drug-injecting than are other human beings.
People of African ancestry test “HIV-positive” at a higher rate than others, always and everywhere [2] — in Africa, in the Caribbean, in Europe, in the USA. In the latter, most noteworthy is that Hispanics on the East Coast, who are largely of African ancestry, test “HIV-positive” at rates comparable to those of African-Americans, whereas West-Coast Hispanics, who are predominantly Central and South American, test “HIV-positive” at the much lower rates found among Native Americans. So African ancestry determines being “HIV-positive” even within a socially defined cultural or ethnic or language group like American Hispanics.

Therefore, if HIV/AIDS theory were correct, then African ancestry would significantly determine behavior that includes a much higher rate of careless promiscuity or drug-injecting addiction than is seen in people of non-African ancestry. “Much higher” might better be “extraordinarily higher”: a factor of more than 20 in Africa [2], and in the USA a factor of 20 for black females compared to white females and 7 for black males compared to white males [3]. Furthermore, since the observed or calculated rate of sexual transmission of “HIV” is so low, a phenomenal rate of promiscuity would be called for: 20-40% of adults having something like a dozen sexual partners concurrently and changing them about annually [4].

Never before has sexual behavior been ascribed by mainstream science to genetic determination in this fashion. Nor has any other behavioral characteristic ever been acknowledged to be so genetically determined and race-associated. Indeed, the very notion of behavior being significantly influenced by genetic factors (“sociobiology”, “evolutionary psychology”) remains highly controversial. HIV/AIDS theory is at odds with the mainstream consensus on the relationship between genes and behavior, moreover in a way that is consistent with now-largely-repudiated racial stereotypes.

I was taken aback, therefore, when the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention insisted to me that racial disparities in testing “HIV-positive” could be explained on behavioral grounds (p. 75 in 2]). In any case, the conundrum is quite plain, irrespective of theories about genetic determination of behavior:
Either African ancestry determines extraordinarily careless promiscuity of an extraordinarily high rate, possibly also an inconceivably high rate of sharing infected needles, or HIV/AIDS theory is plain wrong.

I continue to believe that this ought to be of prime significance to African-Americans. Official explanations try to skirt the issue and thereby make no sense, for example [3]:
“The greater number of people living with HIV in African American communities and the fact that African Americans tend to have sex with partners of the same race/ethnicity means that they face a greater risk of HIV infection with each new sexual encounter” — In other words, a classic tautology: there’s more HIV because there’s more HIV. But why are more African Americans “living with HIV” in the first place?
“African American communities have higher rates of other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) compared with other racial/ethnic communities in the United States. Having an STI can significantly increase the chance of getting or transmitting HIV” — First, it is simply not true that African Americans always and everywhere have higher rates of STIs. Second, it is simply not true that rates of STI incidence correlate with rates of “HIV-positive” (p. 31 ff. in [2]), and anyway the racial disparities in testing “HIV-positive” are seen even among people who have STIs (Figure 12, p. 42 in [2]). Third, even if STIs and “HIV” did correlate, the same conundrum would apply of apparent racial determination of carelessly promiscuous sexual behavior.
“The poverty rate is higher among African Americans — 28% — than for any other race. The socioeconomic issues associated with poverty — including limited access to high-quality health care, housing, and HIV prevention education — directly and indirectly increase the risk for HIV infection” — This is waffling, no real explanation, simply bullshit [5]. In Africa, “HIV-positive” rates are greater among the higher economic strata of Africans [6].

Current official statements and practices emphasize that “HIV/AIDS” has become largely a problem for African-Americans and their communities. That is damaging in several ways: increasing the pressure on black Americans to be tested and thereafter subjected to toxic antiretroviral drugs; causing untold harm to people and their families who happen to test “HIV-positive”, for which there are innumerable possible causes (see The Case against HIV); and providing apparent support for racist stereotypes;

Half-a-dozen years ago, such considerations led me to submit a manuscript posing this conundrum or dilemma to what would seem the most obviously appropriate journal, the DuBois Review: Social Science Research on Race. I’ve already described briefly the fate of that MS. [1]. I said there that the journal did not give me permission to reproduce the reviewers’ comments verbatim, but looking back on the e-mail correspondence, I see that they did not refuse permission, they simply did not respond to my query. Furthermore, the reviewers’ comments were not marked confidential, neither was my e-mail correspondence with the journal. So I’ve decided that the full story might interest some of my readers, and I post here copies of my manuscript, of the reviewers’ comments, and of my correspondence with the journal.

———————————————————————————–
[1] Pp. 49-50 in Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth
[2] The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory
[3] Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, “HIV among African Americans”, February 2013, February 2014
[4] James Chin, The AIDS Pandemic, Radcliffe, 2007, p. 64
[5] Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit, Princeton University Press, 2005
[6] Theo Smart, “Structural Factors — PEPFAR: Greater wealth, not poverty, associated with higher HIV prevalence in Africa, according to survey”, nam-aidsmap, 2 August 2006

Big Pharma and the Mob

HIV/AIDS beliefs have subjected innumerable people to highly toxic medication. AZT alone killed about 150,000 (“HAART saves lives — but doesn’t prolong them!?”).  The pharmaceutical industry shares at least some of the blame.

A recent book charges Big Pharma with actually criminal behavior. It is by a Danish doctor and researcher who had been a drug salesman in his younger days. For a summary of Big Pharma’s misdeeds, have a look at “Crimes of the Drug Industry” on my other blog.