The biggest fraud of this era
I think one of the biggest fraud of the modern times is the AIDS phobia. It has been
created deliberately with an ulterior motive. The obvious one is to be able to attract big
capital for research by stipulating that there is no known cure for it. Now after a
sustained decade long effort (sic), it is said that the vaccines would be available,
obviously bringing about a windfall for the medicine world.
But another fallout, whether intended or not, but most probably the latter, it has resulted
in a new attitude towards sex. In the name of 'safe sex' , the sale of condoms has been
given a great push which the sustained campaign of fifty years could not. By assuring a
safe sex, the adolescents have been encouraged to experiment. Prior to the advent (sic) of
AIDS, the open advocacy of extra marital sex was considered to be a bad thing and the
censor would come down heavily on it. It had to be hinted at just like the famous
alcoholic drink was promoted in the name of a glass tumbler of the same name and actor
Ashok Kumar extolling the virtue of the water (sic) drunk out of that glass. No one was
fooled by it except the censor. With the advent of the AIDS, this camouflaging is no
longer necessary. We have the advertisement cleared for general viewing in which a
wonderful broadminded wife is packing the suitcase of the husband going on a tour and,
at the last minute (to draw special attention to it), opening it and putting in a pack of
condoms on the top of the clothes.
Why is this AIDS a fraud? The facts are simple, the HIV virus is said to give AIDS
which destroys the immunity to harmful virus and bacteria. Africa is said to be rampant
in this disease and it is implied if not said that it has spread from there to all over the
world. Wikipedia has to say this about it -"Africa's population has rapidly increased over
the last 40 years, and consequently it is relatively young. In some African states half or
more of the population is under 25 years of age. African population grew from 221
million in 1950 to 1 billion in 2009." If really the AIDS was the killer it is reputed to be,
we should have seen a decline in the population rather than such a rapid increase.
We have a long alarming article on Swaziland. Let me quote it in full
"In Swaziland, a small landlocked country in Southern Africa, one in four people are
living with HIV. Since the first cases of AIDS were reported in the country in 1986, the
virus has spread at an alarming rate and now 26.1% of the country's adult population
are infected - the highest HIV prevalence rate worldwide.1 Women have been
particularly affected by the epidemic; among those aged 15-49 HIV prevalence among
women is 31%, compared to 20% among men.2
AIDS has devastated the country. Around 10,000 adults and children died from AIDS in
2007 alone, around 15,000 Swazi children aged up to 14 years are living with HIV, and
an estimated 56,000 children have been orphaned by AIDS. The impact of Swaziland's
epidemic has been so severe that life expectancy has dropped to just 32 years - the
lowest in the world.
The long-term survival of Swaziland as a country will be seriously threatened if the
spread of HIV is not halted."
This is followed up by another news item in a similar vein.
"Preliminary results of Swaziland's national census released last month found that since
1997, the country's population has decreased by 17,489 people to 912,229, and many
experts have attributed demographic changes to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, Toronto's
Globe and Mail reports. The government has not finalized the results of the census, but if
the figure holds, it would mean that the country is 300,000 people below what was
projected as the likely rate of growth 20 years ago, according to the Globe and Mail.
The country grew by more than 200,000 people from 1986 to 1997, Solomon Dlamini,
head of the national university's department of demography and statistics, said, adding,
"But it's the period between these two censuses (1997 and 2007) when the [HIV/AIDS]
epidemic reached its apex." Swaziland has the highest HIV prevalence in the world: 26%
of adults, 49% of young women between the ages of 25 and 29 and 43% of pregnant
women are HIV-positive. According to the Globe and Mail, the population decline could
be attributed both to people dying of AIDS-related conditions and because HIV infection
lowers the number of children women have."
And now for the facts . The 2009 estimates of population of Swaziland is 1,185,000. In
the 2007 census it was 1,018,449 - a rise of 17 % in 2 years. This is how the lie is spread
hoping to create panic. Notice that the entire comments in the above article are based on
preliminary estimates. The final estimates put the population in 2007 at 10,18.449, arise
of 88,736 and not a decline of 17,489.
What is true of the most "infected" country would also be true of others. Let us consider
the case of our own country.
In 2006 UNAIDS estimated that there were 5.6 million people living with HIV in India,
which indicated that there were more people with HIV in India than in any other country
in the world. In 2007, following the first survey of HIV among the general population,
UNAIDS and NACO agreed on a new estimate – between 2 million and 3.1 million
people living with HIV. In 2008 the figure was confirmed to be 2.5 million Notice the
drop in the estimates in 2006 and 2007, more than 100 %. Even this new estimate may be
an exaggeration.
At the beginning of 1986, despite over 20,000 reported AIDS cases worldwide, India had
no reported cases of HIV or AIDS. However, this did not suit the powers that be and it
was said that it was because "unlike developed countries, India lacks the scientific
laboratories, research facilities, equipment, and medical personnel to deal with an AIDS
epidemic. In addition, factors such as cultural taboos against discussion of sexual
practices, poor coordination between local health authorities and their communities,
widespread poverty and malnutrition, and a lack of capacity to test and store blood would
severely hinder the ability of the Government to control AIDS if the disease did become
widespread.”
Notice that cultural taboos were stated as a reason and it was decided to break this taboo
(read cultural heritage). It was attempted to first show that AIDS had been imported. So
the following report appeared in the press - "Later in the year (1986), India’s first cases
of HIV were diagnosed among sex workers in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. It was noted that
contact with foreign visitors had played a role in initial infections among sex workers,
and as HIV screening centres were set up across the country there were calls for visitors
to be screened for HIV. Gradually, these calls subsided as more attention was paid to
ensuring that HIV screening was carried out in blood banks. But this foreign bogie was
not enough for the purpose set before the authorities and so HIV had to indigenized.
How it was done, we will describe later but first the process to combat the "disease".
Despite this reported low incidence of AIDS, no time was lost and in 1987 a National
AIDS Control Programme was launched to co-ordinate national responses. What was the
response supposed to be to - towards a non existent disease? But when the whole world
was shouting from the house top about the epidemic, how could India remain backward
with no trace of this feature of modernity. So we can say safely now that "HIV infection
is now common in India; exactly what the prevalence is, is not really known." (This
comment was in 1998, long after central and state agencies had been working for more
than a decade). Common but still not widely prevalent.
Manipur was selected as the main target of AIDS. And so the agencies set to work.
Whereas NACO reported a state-wise HIV prevalence of 17.9% among IDUs, this was
not enough and private studies were conducted. These studies from different areas of the
state find prevalence to be as high as 32%. As in Swaziland, this has not prevented
Manipur from recording an increase in population from 1991 census to 2001 census.
Decadal growth rate in the country as a whole is 21.34 %. In Manipur it is 30.02 %. In
the reputed worst affected district Churachandpur, it is 29.81 %.
If the disease in now common, the casualty figures should be high. Let us examine from
this angle. What are the causes of death in India. World Health Organization study state
that in 1998, the reasons were as follows -
Total mortality
Non-communicable conditions 47%
Respiratory, diarrheal, and childhood diseases 23%
Other infectious diseases 3%
Malaria 0%
Tuberculosis 5%
HIV/AIDS 2%
Sexually transmitted diseases except HIV 1%
Not scared? It does not matter, we will work on the infectious diseases. The scores are
Mortality from infectious diseases
Sexually transmitted diseases except HIV 2%
Respiratory infections 31%
Other infectious diseases 10%
Malaria 1%
Tuberculosis 14%
HIV/AIDS 6%
Diarrheal diseases 22%
Childhood diseases 14%
Still not scared! We have the weapon of projections. So we estimate that in the year
2033, the figures would be
Total mortality
Non-communicable conditions 41%
Respiratory, diarrheal, and childhood diseases 19%
Other infectious diseases 3%
Malaria 0.2%
Tuberculosis 4%
HIV/AIDS 17%
Sexually transmitted diseases except HIV 0%
Nutritional 1%
Injuries 8%
Maternal and prenatal 7%
Infectious diseases 44%
And the corresponding figure for infectious diseases are
Mortality from infectious diseases
Sexually transmitted diseases except HIV 1%
Respiratory infections 20%
Other infectious diseases 6%
Malaria 0.4%
Tuberculosis 9%
HIV/AIDS 40%
Diarrheal diseases 15%
Childhood diseases 9%
This should be enough justification for our purpose. Maybe the higher figures would be
counter productive.
Is it difficult to ascertain the reason behind all this hue and cry about HIV? The budget of
NACO in year 2007-08 was Rs. 815 crores. In United States, the budget for fiscal year
2006 was $ 21 billion (a 7 % rise from the previous year). Of this $ 3 billion is for
assistance to other countries. Mostly this is spent on conferences around the globe where
the worthies seek to coordinate their efforts to contain the disease. So a big money in
involved which, alone, would be a good justification for carrying on.
What about the disease itself? How do we really know about it? On May 18, 2009 this
headline would say it all - "Don't Rely On HIV Symptoms - Get Tested". It is admitted
that "many people who have been infected with HIV have few or no HIV symptoms". It
is regretted that people come in with symptoms like fever, headache, muscle and joint
pain, sore throat, rash and diarrhea. In response to these symptoms, physicians diagnose
the flu and send the patient on their way. In the majority of cases, their diagnosis proves
correct. But unfortunately, a number of people with these vague, indistinct symptoms
have a more serious illness than the flu; these symptoms may signal the acute stages of
HIV infection.
But just to play safe it is said that many of the symptoms of HIV are a result of infection
by other viruses, fungi or bacteria. So anything can be HIV or it may not be. And
symptoms cover respiratory system, skin, teeth, may result in depression, numbness,
shortage of breath. You name it, it is there. So you can not escape it. A test is essential.
That is the strategy. There is no way to tell about the disease otherwise.
So the tests come in. And what do they cost? In San Francisco, the cost is $ 45 to 70
when it is conducted by AIDS foundation. And you have a home testing kit also, all for
$42.75. Flipkart.com is willing to supply you in India a book about the testing for Rs.
2714, after a discount of Rs. 301. A test in the public sector in India will cost Rs 500
which is obviously subsidized. In the private sector, the cost will be Rs. 1000.
And who should undergo the tests. Everybody, if the authorities have their way. Couples
before marriage; mothers before delivery; any body with any symptoms may be of
common cold, fever, headache. And just to play safe, even if you do not have any
symptoms. And it is advertised that the results will be kept confidential. On one hand we
advertise that HIV does not spread by eating food together, by shaking hands and, on the
other hand, we talk of secrecy. No such secrecy attracts abnormal blood pressure. The
secrecy is to give it a touch of mystery. That way, it can be made to look worse than
what it will be.
What about the cure of the disease? Being of recent (sic) origin, there are no known
cures. So we must go in for research. It is a very attractive preposition and around the
world, it has found many adherents.
The research in mainly on the predictable lines. Find a vaccine. So attempts are directed
in that direction. To point out the urgency, it has been said that "the AIDS virus has
killed 25 million people since it was identified in the 1980s". But it should not be done in
a hurry. So there is no consensus on how, it can be done. It is said that cocktails of drugs
can control HIV but there is no cure. In 2007, Merck & Co ended a trial of its vaccine
after it was found not to work, and in 2003, AIDSVAX used alone was found to offer no
protection, either.
Claims are, nevertheless, being made some vaccines do work. So we have the following
report, "an AIDS vaccine that appears to have worked at least partly in Thailand may
only temporarily protect patients, with the effects starting to wane after a year or so,
researchers reported on Thursday. (www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61I09L20100219
The realization appears to have sunk in that it is all a wild goose chase. so no surprise in
the news - "Three years less a day after Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood beside Bill
Gates and pledged $111-million toward the search for an AIDS vaccine, the federal
government has officially cancelled the centerpiece project of that partnership, saying a
manufacturing plant is no longer needed and Canadian researchers were not up to the job
anyway." (Globe and Mail Feb 19, 2010)
It is all big business and stakes are high. So we have to keep it up. Would it be possible
to stop the juggernaut given that big money is involved and also the career of so many
experts (sic)?