AIDS post-HIV : beat of a different drummer - AltHeal

could be ‘strongly urged’ to get such a shot. One
only has to look critically at vaccines to understand
their potential danger and, there f o re ,
decline such an ‘offer’. This, however, could be
seen as ‘socially irresponsible’, leading to legal
procedures.
b) Once a ‘promising looking vaccine to p o s t -
pone the onset of AIDS’ is developed, people
living with a ‘HIV positive’ test result would be
‘ o ff e red’ such a vaccine. If also choosing to
decline - for good reasons, since so far such
vaccination attempts are more fruitful in causing
rather than preventing AIDS - one could be seen
as a ‘burden on national health care’ for long
courses of expensive treatments as opposed to
‘one cheap shot’.
c) Due to AIDS, sexual penetration is not to
happen anymore without using condoms (‘Safe
Sex’), full stop. Failing to use them will be seen
as an offense, a criminal act, e.g. attempted
m u rd e r. Prosecution follows as already seen in
several cases.
d) If a couple decides to have children, they
would as ‘responsible’ parents undergo ‘voluntary’
‘HIV testing’. If he tests positive, he would -
as a ‘responsible’ citizen - refrain from donating
his sperm or pharmaceutically ‘wash’ it.
e) If the woman tests ‘HIV positive’ and cannot
be ‘convinced’ not to have children - after all
founding a family is a declared human right - she
would be ‘strongly recommended’ the following:
use of AZT in the last month of pregnancy, giving
birth with caesarean section followed by administration
of prophylactic drugs to the new-born
until ‘proven’ ‘HIV negative’ or ..... dead. If she
refuses - and there are PLENTY of good reasons
to refuse such a toxic ordeal - she would be
d e c l a red ‘irresponsible’, ‘selfish’ and, hence, an
unfit mother. There goes custody and the child.
f) For those already ill with AIDS or ‘vaccine
naive’, ‘direct observed treatment’ (DOT) would
become ‘treatment reality’. I do not know of
anybody who survived the ever changing ever
toxic AIDS drugs.
Such horror scenarios do happen alre a d y. It
would be naive to believe further human rights
violating measures could not be enforced as
‘public health protection measures’.
‘HIV testing’ should be voluntary according to the
International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human
Rights. There are good reasons for that e.g. risk
of discrimination and other forms of degrading
t reatments and threats to life and security of a
person. However, in reality ‘voluntary’ means
m o re and more coercion, using ‘moral’ and
‘social responsibility’ implications to pre s s u re
people to ‘consent’.
So far most AIDS-organisations have done little
to prevent such violations of declared human
rights (right to life and security of person). They
seem more concerned with the interests of their
sponsors: exploiting the AIDS markets or
‘ p rotecting the public from ‘HIV’’ on governmental
grants.
The NSC and AIDS dissent
It has been suggested on several occasions that
the NSC-measure will make it ‘legal’ for the CIA
to take drastic actions against those dissenting
from what is commonly propagated about AIDS.
We should keep in mind that the CIA does not
need ‘authorisation’ to carry out its often dirty
business to ‘solve’ what is perceived as a threat
to the establishment. That IS their mission after
all.
Activities from rubbishing dissident positions and
persons, to storming premises, to tapping phone
lines, taking legal actions against dissenters,
intensifying AIDS hysteria and plain censorship
have been claimed as CIA actions against
dissenters.
All quite possible. However, for those of us
around that block several times these ordeals are
not new. They have been used against us ever
since the first dissenters raised their voices. Of
course, when taken seriously like currently in
South Africa, the challengers become a considered
threat to prevailing paradigms. Bringing up
the issues to a more serious political level, like a
national AIDS-panel - due to publicity - can give
certain public protection by raising public awareness.
The ‘HIV’ establishment will continue most likely
try to avoid direct confrontations. Countering the
dissidents will be done by more (pseudo) scientific
publishing and media reporting and trying to
influence opinion leaders and policy makers. Of
course, there are the Mark Wainberg’s, president
of the International AIDS Societies, calling for
jailing those who dissent on AIDS. On what
grounds though There might be many of those -
whom I consider fascists - in the ‘HIV’ establishment.
They might bump up now in gre a t e r
numbers. After all they lose much when losing
‘HIV’. Still, remember, tides do change, no NSCstrategy
will prevent that.
email - michubaga@access.ch.uk
65
CONTINUUM vol 6, no 1/2