HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

Posts Tagged ‘needle-exchange programs’

Blind leading the blind: drugs, needles, “HIV”

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/03/29

Three decades ago, John Lauritsen pointed out that the way in which the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) categorized AIDS patients was fatally misleading, masking the plain fact that the chief “risk group” comprised drug addicts. A decade earlier, Gordon Stewart had observed the symptoms of ill health typical among drug abusers to include opportunistic infections — much the same as those of “AIDS” sufferers.

But the disaster of HIV/AIDS theory ascribes the ill health to “HIV” instead of to the drugs, leading to official promotion of needle-exchange programs: giving drug injectors clean needles to use so that they will not spreads the putative virus among themselves by sharing “infected” needles.

As it happens, actual follow-up has demonstrated that needle-exchange programs tend to increase rather than decrease the incidence of “HIV-positive”.

But official statements continue to claim the opposite of what the evidence shows. Part of the reason is that official statements are typically composed by specialist writers, public-relations personnel, who are indoctrinated to the same beliefs as the general public and whose jobs do not include familiarity with the technical literature: Official reports are not scientific documents (chapter 8 in Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth, McFarland 2012) . Consequently, ABC News can report what it learns “from the CDC” as “Answers to common questions about HIV, needles and drug use”:

“WHAT ROLE DO DIRTY NEEDLES PLAY IN HIV?

HIV is a blood-borne infection, spread mostly through sex. Intravenous drug users, who sometimes share dirty syringes, account for 8 percent of new HIV infections and 16 percent of people currently living with HIV in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The good news is there’s been progress in curbing infections, largely because of needle-exchange and drug-treatment programs. New HIV infections among drug users dropped from a peak of nearly 35,000 annually in the late 1980s to 3,900 in 2010, the CDC says.

———

WHAT’S THE LEGAL STATUS OF NEEDLE EXCHANGES?

Laws criminalizing possession and distribution of syringes have been removed or relaxed in 26 states and the District of Columbia, according to the public health law research program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia explicitly authorize syringe exchange.

Congress does not allow for the use of CDC funds to pay for syringe-exchange programs. In 2011, a formal determination by the surgeon general permitted spending federal block grant money on syringe programs.

———

WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH SAY?

Multiple studies have found that needle-exchange programs reduce needle sharing and the risk of HIV transmission. Studies have also shown the programs promote drug addicts to get into treatment.”

 

Relying on “scientific” advice, the Republican Governor of Indiana, Mike Spence, has allowed a needle-exchange program after an “epidemic” of “HIV” among injecting drug abusers (Indiana HIV outbreak reaches ‘epidemic proportions’).

Spence is opposed in principle to needle exchanges, understanding that it does not serve the health of individuals or the public to abet drug abuse. But such is the status and prestige of “Science”, and such is the confusion between actual scientific knowledge and what is put out by bureaucracies, that his common sense and sense of morality bowed to the “experts”.

In the “epidemic” in Scott County IN, “the vast majority of the people who’ve become infected during the outbreak shared a syringe with someone else while injecting a liquid form of the prescription painkiller Opana” (Indiana to declare public health emergency over HIV outbreak tied to IV drug use).

The real explanation of what happened, of course, is that Opana conduces to testing “HIV-positive”; innumerable things that conduce to testing “HIV-positive” (section 3.2 in The Case against HIV ).

Posted in experts, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV transmission, uncritical media | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »