AIDS and just suppose
Here’s a piece of wonderful news. Cheap antibiotics may cut the deaths of children in poorer countries by as much as 50%.
If 100 doctors from Mars came to help Africa they could laugh in
derision at the HIV=AIDS theory and still cut 50% of the deaths of
children in Africa simply by giving them the common antibiotic
co-trimoxazole as prophylaxis (prevention).
Here are two Zambian children, one is HIV antibody positive and the other is not, but
both are in reasonable health and fortunate enough to have "adequate"
necessities. Co-trimoxazole will take care of their infections. HIV is irrelevant!
They both got similar infections and the same antibiotic cures both. If
they don’t already have it the same antibiotic prevents it in both.
The World Health Organization announced on the BBC news today
(19/11/04) that co-trimoxazole has been so effective that they called a
halt to tests in Zambia because they’d seen enough and there’s no point
in proving it further. That this common antibiotic has been effective
when used as preventative medicine against pneumonia and serious
infections has been known for years.
But it was only this morning that WHO announced that they’re now
advising a change in treatment of children with HIV antibodies. No more
poison chemicals— cheap antibiotics. Well, well, what do you suppose has
led to that revelation and revolution? Why are they in such a hurry now to change their drug advice?
This means, of course that WHO is not going to treat HIV in these
children (since antibiotics don’t treat viruses). They going to treat
old diseases with old medicine and continue to pretend that they’re
battling the HIV/AIDS plague. Oh well, at least the kids will get the benefit.
In future days some historian will write this entire HIV=AIDS thing
up as a combination of greed, ambition, self-serving research,
gullibility and a flat refusal by the leading AIDS advocates to admit
they got it wrong!
Suppose I jumped up and claimed that I knew what was causing some
bizarre deaths from infection in the homosexual and recreational
drug-taking community (suppose I called the deaths AIDS). Suppose I said
it was a virus that caused AIDS and I gave it a name (HIV).
Suppose after twenty years and multiplied millions of dollars
invested in research I still haven’t established a physical connection
between the virus that I’d picked on and the condition that I said it
caused.
Suppose in the meantime I started selling very expensive drugs that
were extremely toxic, drugs that I admitted were no cure for the
condition that I had proposed. Just suppose I called them AZT or some
such thing.
And suppose that these chemicals were ruining the health of those
that were taking them.
Suppose that the chemicals I was selling to
millions was so destructive that I had to put a warning on the "bottle"
saying that this stuff could maim or kill you but that it would at least have crippling side effects.
And suppose a growing and significant body of leading scientists had
been telling me for years that the virus I claimed was causing the
entire problem still wasn’t known to be a threat to anyone’s life or health.
And suppose I was faced with the dilemma that those taking my
chemotherapy were dying, right, left and center while thousands with the
virus (but well-fed and cared for) were living full lives without any
health problems whatever.
What might I do? I might weaken my toxic cocktail and the result
would be that the patients aren’t killed as quickly as the stronger
stuff killed them. That way my patients would live longer and I could
claim, "See, we’re getting better at treating this ‘disease’ because the
people we’re giving these chemicals to are not dying as quickly." That
way the gullible would think I was finally getting to grips with this
"disease" when in fact I was only killing my patients more slowly.
Suppose to make my case for the viral plague theory I picked on
countries where people had been dying for half of forever with a whole
swarm of old diseases and infections resulting from severe malnutrition,
lack of good sanitation, lack of antibiotics and lack of devoted expert
nursing and medical teams. Suppose they had been dying of these "old"
diseases long before I dreamed up my viral plague theory and suppose
they continue now to die of the same "old" diseases except that I have given them a new name and claimed a phony cause.
Suppose one day documents were leaked that showed that my expert
advisors (scientists on my payroll or in my "club") had been expressing
serious doubts about my claims about the virus and the condition I
insisted it led to and about the useless compounding of the problem with poison. And suppose a large number of families decided to sue me.
But suppose that over a number of years I had the gut feeling that
litigation might be a real possibility and suppose that I was no nearer
proving any connection between the virus I’d picked on and the "plague" I
said it caused. I might shrewdly make a couple more moves. I might
shred and wipe out every memo that proved that such warnings were given.
Still, I’d worry because it’s hard to totally cover anything up. (I’d
sneer when people mentioned this kind of thing and mutter "more
conspiracy theories." You remember, the way the tobacco people did
before they were exposed.)
My second move might be to take the toxic chemicals (AZT and its kin)
off the market. Yes, the chemical poisons that I sold to many millions,
the poison packs that I’d hounded governments into buying to give to
their people.
But why would I want to do that? The answer’s obvious. The quicker I stop dispensing this killing poison the fewer people I’ll kill. And—and this is critically important—people
will eventually forget that I’d been selling that killing stuff. When
the matter is raised I’ll say, "Oh, that, we haven’t used that in years.
That’s in the past. Just look at how much good we’re doing now."
But how could I all of a sudden take these poisons off the market without people smelling a stink?
I would need a way to cover my tracks. I’ll become a hero by
"discovering" that antibiotics do a "better" job than the poisonous
chemicals that I have been selling; poison chemicals that may
well lead to litigation that would cost me billions of dollars. (Of
course I’d laugh if someone suggested that possibility; you remember,
the way the tobacco companies laughed at litigation before the courts
made them pay till they bled.)
I’d be careful how I phrased my public announcements. I would say
that the antibiotics would "buy more time" for those with HIV
antibodies. The truth is the antibiotics would buy more time for those
suffering with old diseases that were around since forever; diseases that I have never shown are caused by HIV. But I’ll be careful to say the antibiotics will buy them "more time" against HIV and AIDS.
I’ll even be able to say, "We have learned how to cut AIDS deaths by
50%." People will look at me with awe and gratitude (in that frame of
mind they’re less likely to think of litigation).
When I say we have learned to cut "AIDS" deaths by 50% (in places
like Africa) with a simple antibiotic, people will somehow think that
we’re really dealing with the alleged AIDS virus when everyone knows
that antibiotics don’t deal with viruses. (But people keep forgetting
these things so it’s a shrewd move just the same. Keep their thinking
wooly.)
When I say we’re cutting "AIDS" by 50% that hides the fact that I still haven’t shown that what I call HIV hurts the immune system or causes what I call AIDS.
The huge 50% cut will he hailed as wondrous and people will be so pleased that "AIDS is finally being beaten" that they’ll not notice
that I could have cut the deaths (in places like Africa) by 50% all
along if I hadn’t been selling my poison chemicals and doing research on
my pet theory that HIV=AIDS.
They won’t notice that we could have cut 50% of these deaths without ever having spent a penny on research into the HIV virus.
They won’t notice that we could have cut 50% of African and other deaths if the "words" HIV and AIDS had never been invented and the half-baked theory had never been spawned.
They won’t notice that the common antibiotic that we’re
now hailing to the skies has been around for years and that it’s
prescribed for opportunistic infections, pneumonia, toxoplasmosis and
the like whether or not people have HIV antibodies.
They won’t notice that if the world woke up tomorrow and humanity had lost all memory of the existence of the HIV=AIDS theory that we could still cut 50% of the deaths in areas like Africa with antibiotics.
And this will really put the icing on the cake. I will tell them that the main advantage of the antibiotic treatment is that it is a fraction of the cost of present poisonous treatments. See what I will do for all the poor, suffering millions?
Most people will be so relieved with the fantastic news that they
won’t ask why I hadn’t been using cheap antibiotics for years. (Besides,
if they bring those questions up I’ll talk my way around them by
throwing statistics and epidemiological studies at them. That’ll shut
them up.)
And while I keep their minds on the battle with a viral plague that I’ve invented the nations will not be able to see that the greedy stockpiling of resources like food and medicine and equipment and seed is what’s killing these poor people. And while I keep their minds on the battle with a viral plague that I’ve invented the nations will not be able to see that war lords and warmongers are the real cause of the bulk of all the deaths in these impoverished countries. And while I keep their minds on the battle with a viral plague that I’ve invented the nations will not be able to see that their sick colonialism in earlier years that used the locals as menial laborers and didn’t help them to become capable and self-governing has generated the poverty, disease and desperation that devastates these poor.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, the abiding word.com.