Africa: HIV/Aids Taking Its Toll

[IfasehunReincarnated]

UN Integrated Regional Information Networks
September 15, 2004
Posted to the web September 15, 2004

The HIV/AIDS pandemic will reduce life expectancy in the worst affected African countries to an average of 29 years, a new UN Population Fund (UNFPA) report has said.

Although the UNFPA's 'State of the World Population 2004' report predicts that the world's 50 poorest countries will triple in size by 2050, the 38 African countries hardest hit by HIV/AIDS are projected to have 823 million people in 2015 - 91 million less than if no AIDS-related deaths occurred.

The Population Fund called for increased efforts to link reproductive health programmes and HIV prevention by promoting the correct use of male and female condoms, and detecting and managing sexually transmitted infections.

"Programmes need to train all providers to help clients assess HIV risk and counsel them about avoiding both disease and unintended pregnancy," the report noted.

Voluntary testing and counselling (VCT) services were often introduced in isolation from other services, but pilot projects in Cote d'Ivoire and India had shown that integrating VCT into sexual and reproductive health services could reduce stigma and save money.

Condom use remained a major challenge in developing countries as "massive shortfalls in supply" and limited resources prohibited wider use. Married women were often unable to negotiate condom use even when they knew their husbands had multiple partners, the report acknowledged.

Ten years after an international forum met in Cairo to develop an action plan for women's reproductive healthcare in developing countries, lack of funding remains a major problem, UNFPA said.

Donors agreed to provide US $6.1 billion a year for population and reproductive health programmes by 2005, a third of the total needed. In 2002 contributions reached around $3.1 billion - only half their commitment, the report remarked.

[tsneds]

First of all,we must do our research and stop accepting things at face value.Boyd Graves appears to be another in a long line of disinformation agents,he claims that HIV was made in a lab and presents a flow chart but HIV has never been isolated in the first place! Also,he fails to point out the fact that HIV tests themselves are invalid because they test for nonspecific antibodies and therefore react to a wide variety of conditions.I found these videos to be extremely endarkening,they have never aired in the U.S.:



VIDEO STREAM USING REAL MEDIA RUNNING TIME / DOWNLOAD
Meditel: The AIDS Catch 41:02 / Download 10.23 MB
BBC: Failed AIDS Tests Video 09:38 / Download 5.62 MB
AZT, Cause for Concern 13:21 / Download 7.78 MB
Meditel: AIDS in Africa 51:50 / Download 12.95 MB
AIDS, Search for Solutions 25:13 / Download 6.32 MB

AUDIO STREAM USING REAL MEDIA RUNNING TIME
Val Turner Audio on HIV Tests 13:01 / Download 1.48 MB
Christine Maggiore on KLOS Part 1 45:31 / Download 5.23 MB
Christine Maggiore on KLOS Part 2 43:42 / Download 5.45 MB




"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."

Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München.

[Rekhati]

HIV was not made in a lab. Afrikans dont have clean water and live in poverty. Malaria, TB, and measles are killing them at high rates. Those in the US are dying of retrovirals. HIV was never proven to exist, period.

AIDS is not a new disease, Contrary to popular belief, AIDS is not new and is not a disease. AIDS is a new name given by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to a collection of 29 familiar illnesses and conditions including yeast infection, herpes, diarrhea, some pneumonias, certain cancers, salmonella, and tuberculosis. (1) These illnesses are called AIDS only when they occur in a person who also has protective disease fighting proteins or antibodies that are thought to be associated with HIV.

As posted on the previous thread.

HIV has never been proven to cause AIDS. The HIV "cirus" has never been isolated properly. They have only claimed to find HIV anibodies.


Even the word "isolation" as used by the most noted researchers (165-167) is incorrect and misleading since neither Montagner, Gallo nor Levy isolated HIV particles, particles of any other human retrovirus, or even virus-like-particles at all .


To date nobody has presented evidence that the so-called HIV proteins or antigens [gp160/150, gp120, gp41/45/40, p34/32, p24, p18/17], are constituents of a retrovirus particle or even retrovirus-like particle let alone a unique retrovirus, HIV.


The following below was taken from:
http://robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/IsItRational.htm
IT RATIONAL TO TREAT OR PREVENT AIDS WITH TOXIC ANTIRETROVIRAL DRUGS IN PREGNANT WOMEN, INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND ANYBODY ELSE?
THE ANSWER IS NEGATIVE

Testing the ELISA test without diluting the serum

I first took samples of blood that, at 1:400 dilution, tested negative for antibodies to HIV. I then ran the exact same serum samples through the test again, but this time without diluting them. Tested straight, they all came positive.

According to Abbott Laboratories, the absorbance value [yellow color intensity] "develops in proportion to the amount of antibodies to HIV-1 which is bound to the bead" (1). What I noticed is that the absorbance values of the specimens that tested negative when diluted [1:400], but positive when undiluted [1:1], had lower values that the samples that, diluted, react positive on both the ELISA and Western blot tests. This would probably mean that the blood that is negative when diluted but positive when undiluted has a lower level of antibodies than the diluted blood that is doubly positive and, therefore, may probably test negative on the Western blot test. However, I have not had the opportunity to check this hypothesis.

3. Discussion
The following are three possible explanations for why undiluted specimens of blood always react positive at the ELISA test:

3.1. Everybody has HIV antibodies.

It is accepted worldwide that the ELISA test for HIV detects antibodies against what is known as the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (3-6). And the pharmaceutical company that commercializes the ELISA kits states that "Abbott HIVAB HIV-1 EIA is an in vitro qualitative Enzyme Immunoassay for the Detection of Antibody to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) in Human Serum and Plasma" (1).

Since all undiluted blood specimens react positive on the ELISA test, a test that supposedly tests for antibodies to HIV, the results presented here suggest that every single human being has HIV antibodies. And this suggests that everybody has been exposed to HIV antigens.

This would mean that all of us have been exposed to the virus that is believed to be the cause of AIDS. The people that react positive even at a dilution of 1:400, would be the ones that have had the highest level of exposure to HIV antigens. The rest of the people - the ones that only react positive with undiluted serum [1:1] - would have had a lower level of exposure to HIV.

3.2. Everybody has different levels of HIV infection.

It is also believed worldwide that a person that reacts positive for antibodies against HIV has not only been exposed to but is infected with a deadly virus that causes immunedeficiency (3-6). Therefore, the positive reactions of all undiluted serums would mean that everybody, or at least all the blood samples that I have tested, including my own, are infected with this "deadly" virus. The ones that react positive at a ratio of 1:400 would simply have a higher level of "deadly" infection than the "deadly" infection had by the ones that only react positive with undiluted serum.

3.3. The test is not specific for HIV.

The results presented here could also mean that the tests used for detecting antibodies to HIV are not specific for HIV, as has been explained previously (7-14). In this case, there would be reasons other than HIV infection, past or present, to explain why a person reacts positive to it. The test also reacts positive in the absence of HIV (7-14).

The scientific literature has documented more than 70 different reasons for getting a positive reaction other than past or present infection with HIV (7,10,11,14,15). All these conditions have in common a history of polyantigenic stimulations (15,16).
Even Abbott Laboratories is well aware of the specificity problems with the ELISA test. This is why they state: "EIA testing alone cannot be used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens suggests a high probability that the antibody to HIV-1 is present" and "Although for all clinical and public health applications of the EIA both the degree of risk for HIV-1 infection of the person studied and the degree of reactivity of the serum may be of value in interpreting the test, these correlations are imperfect. Therefore, in most settings it is appropriate to investigate repeatably reactive specimens by additional more specific or supplemental tests" (1). Interestingly, there are countries like Great Britain where the diagnosis of HIV status is based on the ELISA test alone. No Western blot or any other test is needed there.

The only proper way for establishing the sensitivity and specificity of a given test is with a gold standard. However, since HIV has never been isolated as an independent purified viral entity (17-19), there cannot be a gold standard for HIV.

Everyone Reacts Positive on the ELISA Tests for HIV
http://robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers...sPositive.html

[tsneds]

Population growth rate tells you alot bout what is happening to a countries people. If so many are dying from "AIDS" in Africa then they would have a negative population growth rate and definitely no growth rate,let's look at the countries that the media says are being decimated by AIDS and where the population is mainly black African and compare them to countries where the population is mainly white (Eastern and Northern Europe). From the CIA world Fact book:

Angola
Population growth rate:
2.45% (2006 est.)

Zambia

Population growth rate:

2.11% (2006 est.)

Uganda

Population growth rate:
3.37% (2006 est.)

Congo Population growth rate:
2.04% (2006 est.)



Central African Republic

Population growth rate:
1.53% (2006 est.)



Haiti
Population growth rate:
2.3% (2006 est.)





How about white countries?


Russia
Population growth rate:
-0.37% (2006 est.)


Denmark

Population growth rate:
0.33% (2006 est.)







Latvia


Population growth rate:
-0.67% (2006 est.)


Bulgaria

Population growth rate:
-0.86% (2006 est.)


Czech Republic

Population growth rate:
-0.06% (2006 est.)



Norway Population growth rate:
0.38% (2006 est.)


Poland

Population growth rate:
-0.05% (2006 est.)




So as you can see,the population growth rate in these Northern and Eastern European countries (predominantly white populations) is,except in two cases,experienceing more deaths than births. In the African countries that are supposedly in the center of the AIDS belt they are experienceing a positive population growth rate. So why are'nt these countries in the news as being decimated by AIDS and where are all the deaths from AIDS that the media keeps propagandizing? They are nowhere,they have created the worlds largest testing grounds for experimental drugs using a genius marketing strategy,create a phantom virus and then offer a free solution,Tuskeegee on a continental scale.

[GoodRain]

Originally Posted by IfasehunReincarnated

UN Integrated Regional Information Networks
September 15, 2004
Posted to the web September 15, 2004

The HIV/AIDS pandemic will reduce life expectancy in the worst affected African countries to an average of 29 years, a new UN Population Fund (UNFPA) report has said.

Although the UNFPA's 'State of the World Population 2004' report predicts that the world's 50 poorest countries will triple in size by 2050, the 38 African countries hardest hit by HIV/AIDS are projected to have 823 million people in 2015 - 91 million less than if no AIDS-related deaths occurred.

The Population Fund called for increased efforts to link reproductive health programmes and HIV prevention by promoting the correct use of male and female condoms, and detecting and managing sexually transmitted infections.

"Programmes need to train all providers to help clients assess HIV risk and counsel them about avoiding both disease and unintended pregnancy," the report noted.

Voluntary testing and counselling (VCT) services were often introduced in isolation from other services, but pilot projects in Cote d'Ivoire and India had shown that integrating VCT into sexual and reproductive health services could reduce stigma and save money.

Condom use remained a major challenge in developing countries as "massive shortfalls in supply" and limited resources prohibited wider use. Married women were often unable to negotiate condom use even when they knew their husbands had multiple partners, the report acknowledged.

Ten years after an international forum met in Cairo to develop an action plan for women's reproductive healthcare in developing countries, lack of funding remains a major problem, UNFPA said.

Donors agreed to provide US $6.1 billion a year for population and reproductive health programmes by 2005, a third of the total needed. In 2002 contributions reached around $3.1 billion - only half their commitment, the report remarked.

Another thread made me think of the following question. If we accept the above quotes about the number of deaths in Africa from AIDS and I suppose alike statistical people propose that its geeting worst does that mean that we lost or is losing?

[Nat_Turner78]

Originally Posted by Rekhati

HIV was not made in a lab. Afrikans dont have clean water and live in poverty. Malaria, TB, and measles are killing them at high rates. Those in the US are dying of retrovirals. HIV was never proven to exist, period.

AIDS is not a new disease, Contrary to popular belief, AIDS is not new and is not a disease. AIDS is a new name given by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to a collection of 29 familiar illnesses and conditions including yeast infection, herpes, diarrhea, some pneumonias, certain cancers, salmonella, and tuberculosis. (1) These illnesses are called AIDS only when they occur in a person who also has protective disease fighting proteins or antibodies that are thought to be associated with HIV.

As posted on the previous thread.

HIV has never been proven to cause AIDS. The HIV "cirus" has never been isolated properly. They have only claimed to find HIV anibodies.


Even the word "isolation" as used by the most noted researchers (165-167) is incorrect and misleading since neither Montagner, Gallo nor Levy isolated HIV particles, particles of any other human retrovirus, or even virus-like-particles at all .


To date nobody has presented evidence that the so-called HIV proteins or antigens [gp160/150, gp120, gp41/45/40, p34/32, p24, p18/17], are constituents of a retrovirus particle or even retrovirus-like particle let alone a unique retrovirus, HIV.


The following below was taken from:
http://robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/IsItRational.htm
IT RATIONAL TO TREAT OR PREVENT AIDS WITH TOXIC ANTIRETROVIRAL DRUGS IN PREGNANT WOMEN, INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND ANYBODY ELSE?
THE ANSWER IS NEGATIVE

Testing the ELISA test without diluting the serum

I first took samples of blood that, at 1:400 dilution, tested negative for antibodies to HIV. I then ran the exact same serum samples through the test again, but this time without diluting them. Tested straight, they all came positive.

According to Abbott Laboratories, the absorbance value [yellow color intensity] "develops in proportion to the amount of antibodies to HIV-1 which is bound to the bead" (1). What I noticed is that the absorbance values of the specimens that tested negative when diluted [1:400], but positive when undiluted [1:1], had lower values that the samples that, diluted, react positive on both the ELISA and Western blot tests. This would probably mean that the blood that is negative when diluted but positive when undiluted has a lower level of antibodies than the diluted blood that is doubly positive and, therefore, may probably test negative on the Western blot test. However, I have not had the opportunity to check this hypothesis.

3. Discussion
The following are three possible explanations for why undiluted specimens of blood always react positive at the ELISA test:

3.1. Everybody has HIV antibodies.

It is accepted worldwide that the ELISA test for HIV detects antibodies against what is known as the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (3-6). And the pharmaceutical company that commercializes the ELISA kits states that "Abbott HIVAB HIV-1 EIA is an in vitro qualitative Enzyme Immunoassay for the Detection of Antibody to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) in Human Serum and Plasma" (1).

Since all undiluted blood specimens react positive on the ELISA test, a test that supposedly tests for antibodies to HIV, the results presented here suggest that every single human being has HIV antibodies. And this suggests that everybody has been exposed to HIV antigens.

This would mean that all of us have been exposed to the virus that is believed to be the cause of AIDS. The people that react positive even at a dilution of 1:400, would be the ones that have had the highest level of exposure to HIV antigens. The rest of the people - the ones that only react positive with undiluted serum [1:1] - would have had a lower level of exposure to HIV.

3.2. Everybody has different levels of HIV infection.

It is also believed worldwide that a person that reacts positive for antibodies against HIV has not only been exposed to but is infected with a deadly virus that causes immunedeficiency (3-6). Therefore, the positive reactions of all undiluted serums would mean that everybody, or at least all the blood samples that I have tested, including my own, are infected with this "deadly" virus. The ones that react positive at a ratio of 1:400 would simply have a higher level of "deadly" infection than the "deadly" infection had by the ones that only react positive with undiluted serum.

3.3. The test is not specific for HIV.

The results presented here could also mean that the tests used for detecting antibodies to HIV are not specific for HIV, as has been explained previously (7-14). In this case, there would be reasons other than HIV infection, past or present, to explain why a person reacts positive to it. The test also reacts positive in the absence of HIV (7-14).

The scientific literature has documented more than 70 different reasons for getting a positive reaction other than past or present infection with HIV (7,10,11,14,15). All these conditions have in common a history of polyantigenic stimulations (15,16).
Even Abbott Laboratories is well aware of the specificity problems with the ELISA test. This is why they state: "EIA testing alone cannot be used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens suggests a high probability that the antibody to HIV-1 is present" and "Although for all clinical and public health applications of the EIA both the degree of risk for HIV-1 infection of the person studied and the degree of reactivity of the serum may be of value in interpreting the test, these correlations are imperfect. Therefore, in most settings it is appropriate to investigate repeatably reactive specimens by additional more specific or supplemental tests" (1). Interestingly, there are countries like Great Britain where the diagnosis of HIV status is based on the ELISA test alone. No Western blot or any other test is needed there.

The only proper way for establishing the sensitivity and specificity of a given test is with a gold standard. However, since HIV has never been isolated as an independent purified viral entity (17-19), there cannot be a gold standard for HIV.

Everyone Reacts Positive on the ELISA Tests for HIV
http://robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers...sPositive.html

You are right on the money with a lot of your statements and I'm impressed with the amount of knowledge that is on this board from the family. I had a discussion similar to this on this board before and it's good to see we are not willing to take on anything that is fed to us and we are willing to do our own research to find truth.

[Nat_Turner78]

Originally Posted by tsneds

First of all,we must do our research and stop accepting things at face value.Boyd Graves appears to be another in a long line of disinformation agents,he claims that HIV was made in a lab and presents a flow chart but HIV has never been isolated in the first place! Also,he fails to point out the fact that HIV tests themselves are invalid because they test for nonspecific antibodies and therefore react to a wide variety of conditions.I found these videos to be extremely endarkening,they have never aired in the U.S.:



VIDEO STREAM USING REAL MEDIA RUNNING TIME / DOWNLOAD
Meditel: The AIDS Catch 41:02 / Download 10.23 MB
BBC: Failed AIDS Tests Video 09:38 / Download 5.62 MB
AZT, Cause for Concern 13:21 / Download 7.78 MB
Meditel: AIDS in Africa 51:50 / Download 12.95 MB
AIDS, Search for Solutions 25:13 / Download 6.32 MB

AUDIO STREAM USING REAL MEDIA RUNNING TIME
Val Turner Audio on HIV Tests 13:01 / Download 1.48 MB
Christine Maggiore on KLOS Part 1 45:31 / Download 5.23 MB
Christine Maggiore on KLOS Part 2 43:42 / Download 5.45 MB




"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."

Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München.

Christine Maggiore has some very powerful information. She and her organization, does good work. I will also urge the family to check out the info on those flawd "HIV" test.

Peace

[NubianSysta]

I'm sitting here with my mouth open reading the information about this disease. I am so happy I came to this board.