Why There is Still an HIV Controversy

VWNOV 10 '93 1:47PMT ADARC P.7

4
2- The persons who come into closest contact with the
virus or the persons it infects -- virus researchers and
health care workers -- are not at risk for AIDS. The CDC
claims only seven or eight (poorly documented)
occupationally caused cases of AIDS from among the millions
of health care workers who have been exposed to the bodily
fluids of AIDS patients [15]. Health care workers as a
group have no greater incidence of AIDS than the population
at large, despite the fact that no vaccine exists to protect
them from infection. In contrast, each year there are more
than 1500 cases of hepatitis infection [estimated] by
accidental needle sticks [20]. Medical researchers work
with HIV every day with no risk greater than that of the
general public.
3. Statistics are manipulated to maintain the impression
that "everyone is at risk" (which maximizes funding), and to
conceal the discrepancies between the HIV theory and the
facts. Almost all AIDS cases in North America fall within
the major risk groups, and almost 90 per cent are male- a
percentage hard to reconcile with the official story that a
newly mutated virus is rampaging through a defenseless
population via heterosexual intercourse [15, 19]. To
reconcile these facts with the "everyone is at risk"
ideology, the HIV establishment enlists statistics from
Africa, where the distribution of AIDS cases between the
sexes is equal. Yet the African figures are very soft,
based mainly on projections from clinical determinations and
ELISA tests that yield a high percentage of false positives
~21-22], When Africans die from diseases that have long
been common, many of these deaths are now attributed to HIV
[21,25]. This is convenient for public health officials who
depend upon the HV theory for their funding, but does it
reflect the facts?
4. Although the HIV theory depends entirely on
correlation, the CDC keeps statistics carelessly, as if its
officials do not want to know any facts that might conflict
with the theory. This situation was briefly exposed at the
Amsterdam Conference in 1992, when the existence of dozens
of suppressed "AIDS without HIV" cases first became publicly
known [16]- instead of considering the obvious implications
of these cases for the WIIV theory, the researchers quickly
buried the anomaly by inventing a new disease called "TOL"
("Idiopathic 0CD4~ Lymphocytopenia"). In a recent article
published in Rio/Technology, Peter buesberg documented the
consistent failure of the ODO to report on the true
tncidence of positive HIV tests in AIDS cases [21, *1ow
many cases have been diagnosed on the basis of unreliable
ELISA tests, or without any testing at all? What efforts
have been made to determine if persons who once tested

positive are still positive, or to validate the antibody
tests against the only real "gold standard" -- the presence
of active, replicating HIV in the body [22]? Given that the