Saturday, March 01, 2003

Duesberg in reverse
The CDC, that hotbed of noxious idiocy, is preparing its retreat on the AIDS question. I've taken the hard line that AIDS doesn't exist, that HIV is not injurious and the medications used against AIDS are killing millions. The story is entirely consistent with that point of view. Call me paranoid, but if you had run a twenty-year panic about a disease that didn't exist in order to secure funding for the medical establishment and now the evidence of that disease's non-existence was becoming clearer and clearer, what would you do? Of course! Find a "CURE"! It's pretty easy to find a cure for a disease that doesn't exist. And any people you treat who do die obviously didn't die of the disease but of other "lifestyle factors"! Just run Duesberg in reverse and keep your credibility relatively unimpaired. On to the next flim-flam. The same thing seems to be happening with mad cow disease. It never really did kill anyone. I'll try to find that article I read earlier and link to it. Advantage Duesberg, Mullis - and Conundrum!
I don't believe it
Maybe I'm just becoming a heartless old crank, but I don't believe this article about the "disaster" in Southern Africa caused by famine and AIDS. The population statistics I've seen don't support it. Let's face it, there have always been thousands of orphans in Africa and famine and diseases beyond counting. Until I see statistics from some source other than UN bureaucrats who have to justify their jobs or African dictators who are looking for something else to blame for their countries' poverty than their own evil and incompetence, statistics that show an actual decline in population traceable to AIDS, why would I believe it's true? How can countries like Zimbabwe and Malawi have a sky-high population growth rate and yet be "devastated" by AIDS and famine?
The UN has become a factory of lies. The point of every lie is to extract money for UN bureaucrats and their sponsoring Third World totalitarian thugs like Mugabe and European enablers like Chirac and Schroeder. The concept of proof is as foreign to a UN official as it is to Greenpeace or the Sierra Club. In fact, it's in their interest to discourage the notion of logic as a "Western imperialist construct". Then every demand for proof can be met by presenting a picture of a wide-eyed swollen-bellied moppet. You heartless man! How can you in your corrupt prosperity deny this child its RIGHT to live - at your expense?
But it's the UN-ers who travel in air-conditioned limousines past the dying children to their next gourmet meal, chuckling at the naïveté of the Americans. No more. Not in MY name.

Friday, February 28, 2003

I want some, too
What's Iran doing in this Tehran Times article? Why, they seem to be reminding people of how bad Saddam has been to them over the last twenty years or so:

Ambassador Zarif -- recalling the Iraqi army's use of chemical weapons -- said his government's "conservative" estimate is that 100,000 Iranians were either killed or injured in those attacks.

"Some are continuing to suffer from the effects of chemical weapons on a daily basis," he said. Despite Iranian anger, the ambassador said Iran opposes U.S.-led war against Iraq. "I believe our region cannot take another war. It's a region that has been the subject of two destructive wars, unfortunately, both of which have been launched by Saddam Hussein." He said Iran was concerned "about the humanitarian consequences of another war, about the political consequences of another war, and about the uncertainty that will be pervading."

Why would they be doing that? Could it be that they saw Turkey getting tens of billions of dollars for being on the side of the Great Satan and thought, well, we could spend some of those dollars, too? And then there's this somewhat astonishing statement:

In a meeting between the Iraqi chief spy and a son of Israel's Ariel Sharon, Saddam sent the following message to the Israelis: If Israel convinced the United States not to attack Iraq, as a quid pro quo Iraq will officially apologize to Israel for supporting the Palestinians; Iraq will accommodate two million Palestinians and will grant them Iraqi nationality; and Iraq will supply 350,000 barrels of oil to Israel every day. The Israelis told the Iraq chief spy that they will respond after the elections.

I haven't seen that anywhere else. And some stuff that sounds awfully nutty about American chemical weapons that were taken when Saddam conquered Kuwait and used against the Americans in Desert Storm? Make up your own mind, but something's going on among the mullahs. Mullah-ing things over, I guess.

Monday, February 24, 2003

AIDS in Africa - another theory
Medpundit, (via Colby Cosh and RangelMD), has some details about a just-released study that seems to show that HIV transmission in Africa is not via heterosex, but through dirty needles. So there's more evidence that heterosexual "breakout" of AIDS just doesn't happen. Why not? I'm getting tired of repeating the same evidence from Duesberg and Mullis and asking over and over how this virus chooses its victims on the basis of their sexual orientation. Isn't there some other "at-risk group" that uses dirty needles - not just poor Africans?
Well, I'm off to take the bar exam, so I won't be blogging for a few days, not that I've done much lately. Hmm, must have something to do with all that studying that right now feels so completely ineffective. Oh, well, I'll just have to go back in July and take it again. Another little vacation.