Where Does 60 Billion Dollars Go?

The Group of Eight rich-and-powerful nations have decided to send $60 billion to “fight Aids, TB and Malaria” in Africa.

That will certainly include some anti-TB and -Malaria drugs, but…what about providing sewage reclamation for Soweto, Kampala, and other large cities? Last time I looked, the Uganda Sewerage Corporation provided about 7% of the Kampala region with sewage reclamation. (The rest just go where they live).

Try that in the New York City area in summer, and tell me how it would go…

How about pesticides – DDT – to kill mosquitoes? Well, we did it here for quite some time, (and provided sewage reclamation for everyone) – and lookee, no more malaria.

How much of that money is going to clean water programs? How about infrastructure development?

As far as the “Aids” money – what’s that for but putting rubbers on everyone and keeping the population in check – plus making taxpayers pay for the poisons we call ‘Aids drugs’?

If we’re interested in population control – ie Eugenics – why don’t we just say so? I guess the good, American, “liberal” population might not find that so easy to support.

So, where does the money go, mes amis?

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Where Does 60 Billion Dollars Go?

  1. Does it go here? Because they certainly need some drugs and condoms, n’est-ce pas?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070608/ap_on_re_af/kenya_outlawed_sect

    NAIROBI, Kenya – Hundreds of people fled a Nairobi shantytown on Friday, picking their way through a maze of dusty streets as they accused police of terrorizing the innocent in their crackdown on an outlawed gang.

    While many in Mathare acknowledge the shadowy Mungiki sect does operates from slum, they also said police were indiscriminately rounding up residents and demolishing homes in search of weapons. More than 30 people have died in the crackdown.

    “I have never witnessed in my life anything like what is happening,” Jane Wachira, a 37-year-old mother of three, told The Associated Press as she packed her bags Friday. “My children and I are traumatized.”

    Mungiki was inspired by the 1950s Mau Mau uprising against British rule, but has become a street gang linked to murder, political violence and extortion. Hundreds of paramilitary police have been tearing through Mathare since Monday, rounding up residents, clubbing them and knocking down homes constructed of wood and iron sheeting.

  2. And here’s the great Aids propaganda paper, the NYTimes, giving its massive attack on Africa today:

    New AIDS Cases in Africa Outpace Treatment Gains

    Clinic workers persuade four in five women to be tested, and one in six tests comes back positive. Last year alone, the clinics identified 5,018 women who were poised to pass H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, to their babies.

    Never mind that the tests are absolute and total sci-fi bullshit.

    But wait – here’s the story, exactly and precisely in reverse, in India:

    India, Said to Play Down AIDS, Has Many Fewer With Virus Than Thought, Study Finds

    India, which has been repeatedly accused of denying the size of its AIDS epidemic, probably has millions fewer victims than has been widely believed, according to a new but still unreleased household survey….

    “This is a replay of what happened in Kenya,” said Daniel Halperin, an expert on AIDS infection rates at the Harvard School of Public Health. When Kenya was more carefully surveyed in 2004, he said, its prevalence rate was halved, to 6.7 percent from the 15 percent that Unaids had estimated in 2001.

    But Dr. Halperin said that AIDS-fighting agencies had such a stake in portraying the epidemic as an approaching Armageddon that they were hesitant to make revisions.

    Economics and population control, anyone?

  3. And, a different point of view, from the inside:

    SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH AFRICAN ECONOMICS EXPERT

    “For God’s Sake, Please Stop the Aid!”

    The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.

    SPIEGEL:

    Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa…

    Shikwati: … for God’s sake, please just stop.

    SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

    Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

    SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

    Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa’s problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn’t even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.

    SPIEGEL: Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them.

    Shikwati: But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there’s a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program — which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It’s only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it’s not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa …

    SPIEGEL: … corn that predominantly comes from highly-subsidized European and American farmers …

    Shikwati: … and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unsrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN’s World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It’s a simple but fatal cycle.

    SPIEGEL: If the World Food Program didn’t do anything, the people would starve.

    Shikwati: I don’t think so. In such a case, the Kenyans, for a change, would be forced to initiate trade relations with Uganda or Tanzania, and buy their food there. This type of trade is vital for Africa. It would force us to improve our own infrastructure, while making national borders — drawn by the Europeans by the way — more permeable. It would also force us to establish laws favoring market economy.

    SPIEGEL: Would Africa actually be able to solve these problems on its own?

    Shikwati: Of course. Hunger should not be a problem in most of the countries south of the Sahara. In addition, there are vast natural resources: oil, gold, diamonds. Africa is always only portrayed as a continent of suffering, but most figures are vastly exaggerated. In the industrial nations, there’s a sense that Africa would go under without development aid. But believe me, Africa existed before you Europeans came along. And we didn’t do all that poorly either.

    SPIEGEL: But AIDS didn’t exist at that time.

    Shikwati: If one were to believe all the horrorifying reports, then all Kenyans should actually be dead by now. But now, tests are being carried out everywhere, and it turns out that the figures were vastly exaggerated. It’s not three million Kenyans that are infected. All of the sudden, it’s only about one million. Malaria is just as much of a problem, but people rarely talk about that.

    SPIEGEL: And why’s that?

    Shikwati: AIDS is big business, maybe Africa’s biggest business. There’s nothing else that can generate as much aid money as shocking figures on AIDS. AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical.

    SPIEGEL: The Americans and Europeans have frozen funds previously pledged to Kenya. The country is too corrupt, they say.

    Shikwati: I am afraid, though, that the money will still be transfered before long. After all, it has to go somewhere. Unfortunately, the Europeans’ devastating urge to do good can no longer be countered with reason. It makes no sense whatsoever that directly after the new Kenyan government was elected — a leadership change that ended the dictatorship of Daniel arap Mois — the faucets were suddenly opened and streams of money poured into the country.

    SPIEGEL: Such aid is usually earmarked for a specific objective, though.

    Shikwati: That doesn’t change anything. Millions of dollars earmarked for the fight against AIDS are still stashed away in Kenyan bank accounts and have not been spent. Our politicians were overwhelmed with money, and they try to siphon off as much as possible. The late tyrant of the Central African Republic, Jean Bedel Bokassa, cynically summed it up by saying: “The French government pays for everything in our country. We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it.”

    SPIEGEL: In the West, there are many compassionate citizens wanting to help Africa. Each year, they donate money and pack their old clothes into collection bags …

    Shikwati: … and they flood our markets with that stuff. We can buy these donated clothes cheaply at our so-called Mitumba markets. There are Germans who spend a few dollars to get used Bayern Munich or Werder Bremen jerseys, in other words, clothes that that some German kids sent to Africa for a good cause. After buying these jerseys, they auction them off at Ebay and send them back to Germany — for three times the price. That’s insanity …

    SPIEGEL: … and hopefully an exception.

    Shikwati: Why do we get these mountains of clothes? No one is freezing here. Instead, our tailors lose their livlihoods. They’re in the same position as our farmers. No one in the low-wage world of Africa can be cost-efficient enough to keep pace with donated products. In 1997, 137,000 workers were employed in Nigeria’s textile industry. By 2003, the figure had dropped to 57,000. The results are the same in all other areas where overwhelming helpfulness and fragile African markets collide.

    SPIEGEL: Following World War II, Germany only managed to get back on its feet because the Americans poured money into the country through the Marshall Plan. Wouldn’t that qualify as successful development aid?

    Shikwati: In Germany’s case, only the destroyed infrastructure had to be repaired. Despite the economic crisis of the Weimar Republic, Germany was a highly- industrialized country before the war. The damages created by the tsunami in Thailand can also be fixed with a little money and some reconstruction aid. Africa, however, must take the first steps into modernity on its own. There must be a change in mentality. We have to stop perceiving ourselves as beggars. These days, Africans only perceive themselves as victims. On the other hand, no one can really picture an African as a businessman. In order to change the current situation, it would be helpful if the aid organizations were to pull out.

    SPIEGEL: If they did that, many jobs would be immediately lost …

    Congolese line up for a United Nations food delivery in 2002.

    Shikwati: … jobs that were created artificially in the first place and that distort reality. Jobs with foreign aid organizations are, of course, quite popular, and they can be very selective in choosing the best people. When an aid organization needs a driver, dozens apply for the job. And because it’s unacceptable that the aid worker’s chauffeur only speaks his own tribal language, an applicant is needed who also speaks English fluently — and, ideally, one who is also well mannered. So you end up with some African biochemist driving an aid worker around, distributing European food, and forcing local farmers out of their jobs. That’s just crazy!

    SPIEGEL: The German government takes pride in precisely monitoring the recipients of its funds.

    Shikwati: And what’s the result? A disaster. The German government threw money right at Rwanda’s president Paul Kagame. This is a man who has the deaths of a million people on his conscience — people that his army killed in the neighboring country of Congo.

    SPIEGEL: What are the Germans supposed to do?

    Shikwati: If they really want to fight poverty, they should completely halt development aid and give Africa the opportunity to ensure its own survival. Currently, Africa is like a child that immediately cries for its babysitter when something goes wrong. Africa should stand on its own two feet.

    Interview conducted by Thilo Thielke

    Translated from the German by Patrick Kessler

  4. And another:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-363604,00.html

    Choking on Aid Money in Africa

    By Erich Wiedemann and Thilo Thielke

    Ahead of this week’s G8 conference in Scotland, the world’s richest nations forgave billions in debt to the world’s poorest. Great news, right? Not necessarily. Decades of Western aid have done little to ease suffering in Africa — indeed the situation is worse than ever. Is it time for the West to rethink its aid strategy?

    Ethiopia is often a victim of severe draught.
    AP

    Ethiopia is often a victim of severe draught.
    The aid workers are thirsty and the beer is flowing: There is a party mood in Rumbak, the city of tents which at one time almost became the capital of Southern Sudan. It’s is a bit like the end of the day atmosphere at a trade fair: The stands have closed down and people have knocked off work.

    All over the place people in sandals and washed-out T-shirts emblazoned with meaningful slogans (“no cattle plague — more milk”) and where they are stationed (“Somalia, Uganda, Sudan”), dart down side streets. The aid organizations’ colored pennants flutter in the hot evening wind.

    INTERACTIVE MAP
    SPIEGEL ONLINE

    * Click here to load our interactive African development aid map.

    Several times a day local people heave heavy crates out of the rickety old planes which have just landed. Obscure airlines use these planes, before they are sent to the scrap yard, to turn a fast buck. Rumbak, which until recently was a God-forsaken hole, is now booming.

    After over 20 years of civil war between the North and the South in Sudan, a peace agreement has now been reached. In April it was decided in Oslo that Sudan would be granted $4.5 billion in reconstruction aid. A decision which, although greeted joyfully by many people, is viewed with skepticism by Norway’s minister for development aid, Hilde Frafjord Johnson: “Much more aid has been agreed on than I think we actually need.”

    This sudden wealth is a cause for concern even among the aid workers themselves. “If we carry on like this,” says Lammart Zwaagstra, who comes from the Netherlands and works for the EU’s department for humanitarian aid, “then people will never stand on their own two feet.”

    Creating more “need” with generous aid

    Rambak threatens to become a bitter example of how development aid doesn’t really help. Again and again finance is hurriedly provided for one project after another, without any evidence of a convincing overall concept. The money is just thrown at projects as quickly as possible. In this case, Norway has made $500,000 available for just 500 refugees in the camps. The windfall immediately sparked off further need and a second camp, this time home to 345 people, has sprung up. It is the Italians who are footing the bill for the new camp.

    The flow of money to Africa.

    Money is, for the Europeans, the solution to all of Africa’s problems. But despite yearly payments of, at last count, some $26 billion, the majority of the continent resembles something approaching one big emergency military hospital.

    Already today there are increasing numbers of Africans who call for an end to this sort of support. They believe that it simply benefits a paternalistic economy, supports corruption, weakens trade and places Africans into the degrading position of having to accept charity. “Just stop this terrible aid,” says the Kenyan economic expert James Shikwati.

    The suffering is overwhelming: More than 300 million people south of the Sahara have to survive on less than a dollar a day. This figure has gone up by around 100 million over the last 10 years alone. Two thirds of the poorest countries in the world are in Africa, as are 34 of the 35 states with the lowest life expectancy. The UN’s development expert Jeffrey D. Sachs has written that sickness plagues Africa like a “silent tsunami” surging over the continent every day.

    It is impossible to develop prosperity in states which are falling apart. Only 1 percent of the world’s wealth is created in the region between the Sahara and the Cape of Good Hope, despite the fact that this area is home to 11 percent of the globe’s population. And without the gold and diamond mines of South Africa and the oil and gas reserves of Nigeria, this figure would be less than half a percent. Forty-two of the 52 states in Africa have either slim, or even no, recognizable opportunities for development. According to Jean Ziegler, a developmental sociologist from Geneva, Africa is like a “raft at sea at night.” It is drifting away and is slowly vanishing off the Western world’s radar.

    Rock music for the world’s poor

    Now a rather unusual band of rescuers has decided to help the shipwrecked continent. The ageing rock star Bob Geldof has woken the world up with his Live8 concerts in a series of cities, including Rome, Paris, Berlin, London and Philadelphia. By listening live to Elton John, Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton and a reunited Pink Floyd, hundreds of thousands of people, as well as the tens of millions who watch the concert on television, are demanding that their politicians stick to their promises and save Africa. The motto of the music festival, which has been embraced by millions of people, is “the long march to justice.”

    The timing for the world-wide mobilization to combat the African tragedy has been well chosen. Four days after the concerts, the leaders of the world’s most important industrialized nations will meet in the Scottish golf resort of Gleneagles, near Edinburgh, in order to make a decision on new aid for Africa. Geldof wants to send them an army of demonstrators.

    Even before the summit has begun, the G8 nations have already decided to alleviate the debts which 18 of the world’s poorest countries — 14 of which are in Africa — have accumulated with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the African Development Bank. Instead of having to pay the interest on the debt, $40 billion will be now be available for education, health and support for local businesses.

    Tony Blair, the summit’s host, has the ambitious aim of doubling, even tripling, development aid for Africa south of the Sahara. Yet even the debt relief is an admission of how much traditional development policy has failed. It shows that despite the massive sums of money which have flowed into Africa, it has not been possible to make much progress in the fight against poverty.

    Between 1970 and 2002 the countries south of the Sahara received a total of $294 billion in loans. In the same period of time they paid back $268 billion, and accumulated, after interest, a mountain of debt amounting to $210 billion. Why is it that the billions, which both the West and the East poured into Africa during the Cold War, have been so useless? The suspicion is hard to avoid that aid, sometimes, paralyzes.

    Corruption, selfishness and greed

    Basically it is always the same reasons why development aid in Africa tends to disappear down a black hole: incompetent planning of the donor nations, which means that aid is always distributed according to the wrong priorities, as well as a combination of corruption, selfishness, greed and arbitrary use of government power in the recipient countries themselves.

    Aids is just one of the many difficulties facing Africa.
    Often, what started out so promising ends up as a fiasco. Hendrik Hempel, who works for the German Society for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), helped renovate a state-owned farm in North Eritrea after the war with Ethiopia. For years he literally created a blooming landscape.

    But Hempel’s case became a silent indictment of the incompetence of the ruling government party. He managed to get better yields than the state-run farms. But despite his success, he was forced to give up when the government suddenly installed hundreds of former freedom fighters, who had been left without work after a number of state-run farms had gone bust, as paid employees in his business.

    Industrialization and trade, research and development have brought unparalleled levels of prosperity to more sections of society than ever before, first in Europe, and then in the USA. Asia is also making steady progress. The only continent which is falling more and more behind is Africa. And as a result of the dramatic increase in the exchange of goods, data and services, Africa has been left hanging completely.

    Apart from South Africa and the West African oil states, most countries on the continent export almost only raw materials, which are notorious for bringing low returns on international markets. These countries barely participate in the sale of services and manufactured goods in international competition.

    What is known as the “terms of trade” — the difference in price between goods which are imported and those which are exported — have worsened dramatically in large parts of Africa. At the beginning of the 1980s a coffee farmer had to produce 50 sacks of coffee beans in order to buy a tractor. By the end of the 90s this figure had jumped to 140 sacks. And the gap looks set to widen still further.

    While hunger continues to plague Ethiopia on a regular basis, the famine feared for late last year failed to materialize.
    There is no improvement in sight. In 1964, the year of its independence, Zambia’s most important export was copper. Today, 40 years on, copper is still the country’s biggest asset. But if the prices fall — raw material markets wobble up and down like flocks of birds on watering holes in the Serengeti — the whole country instantly collapses into a major crisis.

    In addition to this, industrialized countries put up extra barriers to products coming from developing nations. Although the European Union allows Africans to sell their goods more or less tax free in Europe, the EU’s agricultural subsidies have just as catastrophic an effect as any customs barrier.

    Cotton from Burkina Faso doesn’t stand a chance against subsidized material from Spain. Sugar from Mozambique, Ethiopia or Malawi cannot compete with heavily supported European beet crops. The criticism which Africans direct at Europe and America is “we are so poor because you are so rich.”

    Africa is certainly owed a lot as a result both of the colonial control of the European nations during the 19th and 20th centuries, and the slave trade between the 16th and 19th century. However as time goes on, the argument becomes less convincing: Forty years after the end of colonial hegemony Nelson Mandela is no longer blaming the whites for underdevelopment, but rather pointing the finger at the local politicians and their cronies.

    Getting their house in order

    The South African minister of finance, Trevor Manuel, and his Ghanaian equivalent, Kwadwo Baah Wiredu, are all singing from the same song-sheet: Until Africans get their own house in order, all help will be in vain.

    And it’s certainly true that chieftains, kleptocrats and dictators have always known how to benefit from development aid. The late gun potentate of Zaire, Mobutu Sese Seko, was well off to the tune of at least $4 billion. The former despot of Kenya, Daniel arap Moi, who stood down in 2002, is likewise thought to have swindled $4 billion during his 24 years in office. “When the gravy train passes by, they all jump on,” says Ross Herbert of the South African Institute of International Affairs.

    An infestation of locusts devastated Western African crops last autumn.
    James Shikwati, head of the Inter Region Economic Network in Kenya thinks that aid should be funneled into private business, rather than state projects. “Instead of looking at the private sector, where profit guarantees discipline and efficiency, politicians concentrate on governmental projects which are not subject to profit and loss.”

    The German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) has had some pretty positive experiences in financially supporting private initiatives. After all, when companies are affected, they have an interest in cooperating with aid workers — for example, in the case of the workforce being decimated as a result of AIDS. For this reason DaimlerChrysler and the aid organization GTZ have come together to work on joint project to fight the disease.

    However fruitless development aid has shown itself to be so far, the general attitude has simply been to carry on as before. But now the hardboiled new president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, is modifying this approach. The middle of June he returned from his first visit to Africa, convinced that more money could only make Africa a “continent of hope” if the Africans themselves were more proactive.

    “Aid is not the solution”

    And now, even the countries which receive aid are coming out with more words of warning. Never before have so many African intellectuals called for an end to the classic type of development aid. “Aid is not the solution,” was the headline of the Kenyan newspaper The Standard. According to the paper, aid does not go directly to the people but to “bureaucratic structures.”

    The worst thing about foreign aid, says the Monitor from Uganda, is that it prevents democratic development and urgently needed reforms. The paper also believes that aid stands in the way of long overdue and highly beneficial transparency in society.

    German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s commissioner for Africa, the Green politician Uschi Eid, warns against sweeping acts of charity. If the donor countries don’t make demands on Africans to act themselves, then they shouldn’t expect any reforms — which could be politically unpopular — to be carried out. The “massive swing towards more giving,” which especially Tony Blair is pushing his summit colleagues to do, she says, will only lead to us “laying double the amount of money on the table, but still not solving Africa’s problems.”

    Much of central Africa has been devastated by war for decades. Access to rich diamond mines has been one of the primary sticking points.
    In Mozambique, at the beginning of the 90s, development aid made up 95 percent of GNP. Statistically the people of Mozambique lived as much off the charity of benefactors as from the results of their own work. Countries like Tanzania and Rwanda, which in the last few decades received more than 80 percent of their GNP in aid, are amongst those whose debt is now being cancelled.

    The complete dependence on help from abroad and the World Bank’s absurd demands have killed off individual economic incentives. Western therapy for Africa is like giving poison to a sick man. Or chocolate to a diabetic.

    Donor country generosity is giving a fatal signal. The message is that it isn’t worth paying back loans, as at some point the international community will come along and take the burden anyway. “Those countries who, like us, have always paid their debts have been ignored, while those countries who have simply stopped paying are now getting all the attention,” complains the Kenyan minister for planning, Peter Anyang Nyongo.

    New wells running dry

    Lord Peter Bauer, who was once a professor at the London School of Economics and an advisor to Margaret Thatcher, had already written, 20 years ago, that development aid was “partly one of the reasons for the North-South conflict, rather than its solution.”

    Again and again aid workers put a lot of time and effort into something, with the end result being a grotesque blunder. For example in the building of wells.

    In the past African wells were primitive and not very effective. Modern wells drilled by Western aid workers brought more water in a shorter amount of time. But the high-tech equipment is very complex and requires discipline and expertise — both of which are in short supply in the continent’s neediest regions.

    Only last year, for example, Swiss technicians drilled seven deep wells in Southern Sudan, each of which cost €7,000 — in the meantime five have already run dry. Despite enormous financial investment, the provision of water in, say, parts of the Sahel region has not improved at all over the last 20 years. In fact it has probably got worse.

    Despite widespread destitution, many are beginning to believe that more aid may not be the answer to Africa’s woes.
    Mistakes make no impression on the development aid industry. That is due in part to a lack of suitable quality control procedures. Effect analysis, as it is called at the BMZ, does not give any reliable information about a project’s efficiency. This is because the ministry monitors itself. Or it lets its procedures be regulated by “independent assessment researchers,” who of course want to get hired again later and therefore allow themselves to make, at best, timid criticism.

    The main duty of aids workers is to make themselves redundant. Understandably they take their time doing this. “When I started this job I was brimming with idealism,” says Bernhard Meyer zu Biesen, head of German Agro Action. “But after I had saved enough money within a few years to buy a house, the relationship I had to my job changed.”

    It’s “development cooperation” not aid

    Officially development aid doesn’t exist anymore. The BMZ uses the wonderfully colorful term “development cooperation.” The rationale being that “the countries and organizations which Germany works with are not recipients of aid, but rather our partners.”

    Yet the largest projects have come into being almost entirely without input from the beneficiaries. Such as the 203 kilometers of road which connect the Zambian copper belt to the Namibian port of Walvis Bay.

    So that it didn’t look like charity, the Zambians contributed 4.1 percent of the $30 million road, which was financed by the German Bank for Reconstruction. But just before the road was to be inaugurated, at the beginning of 2004, the government in Lusaka announced that it wouldn’t pay.

    Much of Africa depends on Western aid for survival. Here, a leprosy victim clutches at a Jesuit aid worker in Sudan.
    The Germans then had to come up with extra funds so that the South African contractor would carry on with the work. They also had to pay the interest accumulated on account of the delay.

    On May 13, 2004 the then president of Namibia, Sam Nujoma, attended the opening celebrations, along with the Zambian president Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, so that they could be praised for having built the wonderful road. Banners were put up with the words “thank you, Sam Nujoma, thank you, Levy Mwanawasa.” The German ambassador came anyway. Shortly before the inauguration a small metal sign, noting German involvement in the project, was put up on the bridge crossing the Sambesi, which marks the border between the two countries.

    It remains a mystery as to why the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development places such an emphasis on certain countries. Why does Namibia get so much more than others?

    The former colony has a special relationship to Germany. In 1904 and 1905 the Kaiser’s troops put down a Herero revolt; in the process they killed as many as 65,000 people, among them many women and children. Certainly one motive for German aid development is to make up for this brutality. Except the figures don’t always stack up.

    Giving money to the relatively well-off

    Namibia is one of the wealthiest countries on the continent — it has a relatively well developed infrastructure, has a growth rate of 3.7 percent and a per capita income which is ten times higher than that of Chad or Ethiopia.

    Since Namibia’s independence 15 years ago, Germany has donated more than €400 million. Sudan, on the other hand, which is much poorer and has 16 times as many inhabitants, receives €100 million less. Nevertheless, in 2003 Berlin increased Namibia’s already enormous development aid by 50 percent.

    All this, when Namibia’s leader, Sam Nujoma, believes that his people actually don’t need any help. The Africans are every bit as good as the Europeans, he said to Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair, “and to hell with those who think differently.”

    That hasn’t stopped Nujoma from begging the government in Berlin for money for the planned land reform. Minister Wieczorek-Zeul didn’t disappoint him. Now German tax revenue is helping to finance the legally controversial ousting of German farmers from their land.

    According to the British sociologist and best-selling author Graham Hancock, in his book “Lords of Poverty,” it is the fault of bureaucratic monstrosities like the UN that so many people in the third world are “overworked and underfed.” He doesn’t pull any punches when he sums the situation up: “Development aid is bad through and through, and it is impossible to reform it.”

    The Live8 concerts on Saturday were meant to put pressure on world leaders to increase aid to Africa. But is that the answer?
    These institutions, writes the development theorist Reinold Thiel, have shown themselves to be “amazingly incapable of taking into account practical experience.” Thiel does however see a trend towards improvement.

    The Washington Center for Global Development has calculated that $3,521 of development aid would have to be invested per person, in order to increase the per capita yearly income of the target group by $3.65.

    Yet anyone who tries asking the question about how cost-effective development aid actually is, is quickly labeled a misanthropic cynic. Thiel rails against the fact that these institutions follow their own second-rate way of thinking, which justifies awarding public funds to rainmakers: If they manage to “make rain”, then this proves that giving aid was the right thing to do. If they don’t, then this shows that more aid is urgently needed.

    Media overstates the aid case

    Many media organizations play along too. The German news channel n-tv allows entire programs to be “co-financed” by charitable institutions. The best example being its cooperation with the Christian charity World Vision, with which it produced 24 television documentaries. The programs, which focused on war and catastrophe, showed World Vision to its best advantage. Ethiopia, Africa’s top social case, stood at the center of World Vision’s campaign. Sevety million people are kept alive by “an economy of the heart,” as Horst Siebert, at the time head of the Global Economic Institute of Kiel, put it — but without any hope of ever being freed from the slow drip of aid from donor countries.

    Every Autumn the UN publishes seasonal figures on the areas of hunger in Ethiopia. At the beginning of 2000, 8 million people were thought to be short of food. The notoriously sober Swiss daily Neue Zuercher Zeitung thought these figures were exaggerated — and was right. The paper researched how the panic had arisen: There were camps only in Gode, a town hit by drought. But that was where most of the media coverage was focused. The circus really got going once the news channels CNN and BBC had discovered the camps.

    Hence the completely unrepresentative picture of Ethiopia as a country sinking once more into starvation. It was certainly a saddening situation. But it wasn’t a catastrophe.

    Whenever the media starts calling in the major aid organizations the result is often grotesque and sometimes even harmful. Certainly the white sacks of corn with emergency rations do save human life.

    But very often too many are delivered. The surplus corn is then sold at dumping prices on local markets — which is a massive blow to local businesses. As soon as the emergency situation has eased off, the region’s small landowners hoard their crops. And local farmers stop planting millet, as corn is easy to come by.

    The Sudanese civil war came to an end earlier this year. But violence continues in the western part of the country.
    Countries which attempt to defend themselves against what is supposed to be charity, have to expect to be harshly slapped down: When in autumn 2002 the Zambian government refused to accept genetically modified grain, the American ambassador was blunt in his criticism to the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization. “Leaders who refuse to let their people have food, should be put in the dock for the most serious crimes against humanity,” he said.

    Shortly after that, the UN’s global nutrition program called a “starvation alarm.” Millions of people would die, it said, if help wasn’t given straight away. But the threatened catastrophe never happened. Aid workers had “dramatized the situation,” as the organization Care International was forced to later admit.

    Exaggerating the dangers

    Guy Scott, the former agricultural minister for Zambia, understands why such announcements happen. “Go to a village and ask people if they are hungry. Of course they will always say, yes, they are hungry.”

    Zambia, at least, was spared a major food crisis. As was neighboring Malawi, although the country did experience serious problems when foreign-financed food reserves, which had been set aside for times of need, were illegally sold to Kenya.

    The reports of imminent catastrophe in Zimbabwe were also exaggerated. The British government, most of the major media outlets and the large aid organizations had declared famine to be unavoidable. And in fact the aid lobby actually needed these reports to support the theory that Robert Mugabe was driving his country into the ground with the dispossession of white farmers.

    Now, once again, large amounts of money are supposed to transform Africa. The leaders of the Western nations, when they meet in Gleneagles, will be all too willing to bow down to pressure from Geldof’s fans if this proves them to be merciful heroes. Russia, the permanent outsider among the big eight, has already announced that it will cancel the debt it is owed.

    Bill Gates and Bono have both done what they can to raise awareness for the sufferings of Africa.

    The Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria thinks it is possible that Gleneagles will herald “the brightest moment in Africa’s history.” If so, this will have been made possible by “American realism, European generosity and an African sense of responsibility.”

    Until now American realism and European generosity have not been enough to save the continent. Would an African sense of responsibility now manage to change things?

    To help this to happen, the world’s largest donator, the Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, has defined a strict set of rules. Anyone who applies for help from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to fight Aids or TB, must prove that he can work as efficiently as a private company. Every project must regularly submit sets of accounts. If the project doesn’t work, then the money will be stopped.

  5. Where does 60 billion dollars go?

    Good question.

    Billions and billions of dollars thrown at AIDS since its inception.

    The AMFAR billboard perfectly sums up the waste and futility of AIDS research…”40 million infected, zero cured”.

  6. Forwarded from my friend Dr. Andy Maniotis – see his comments at the bottom.

    And, please, tell me what, besides reducing population, we’re doing by telling people they are “hiv positive”.

    L

    Dear Friends,

    In Botswana, Step to Cut AIDS Proves a Formula for Disaster

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/22/AR2007072201204_4.html?hpid=topnews

    By Craig TimbergNKANGE, Botswana — Doctors noticed two troubling things about the limp, sunken-eyed children who flooded pediatric wards across Botswana during the rainy season in early 2006: They were dying from diarrhea, a malady that is rarely fatal here. And few of their mothers were breast-feeding, a practice once all but universal.

    After the outbreak was over and at least 532 children had died — 20 times the usual toll for diarrhea — a team of U.S. investigators solved the terrible riddle.

    A decade-long, global push to provide infant formula to mothers with the AIDS virus had backfired in Botswana, leaving children more vulnerable to other, more immediately lethal diseases, the U.S. team found after investigating the outbreak at the request of Botswana’s government.

    The findings joined a growing body of research suggesting that supplying formula to mothers with HIV — an effort led by global health groups such as UNICEF — has cost at least as many lives as it has saved. The nutrition and antibodies that breast milk provide are so crucial to young children that they outweigh the small risk of transmitting HIV, which researchers calculate at about 1 percent per month of breast-feeding.

    “Everyone who has tried formula feeding . . . found that those who formula feed for the first six months really have problems,” Hoosen Coovadia, a University of KwaZulu-Natal pediatrician and author of a recent study on formula feeding, said from Durban, South Africa. “They get diarrhea. They get pneumonia. They get malnutrition. And they die.”

    That’s what happened in Nkange, a tiny village on the sandy northern edge of the Kalahari Desert. In a cluster of several dozen homes here, eight children under 2 died during the four-month-long diarrhea outbreak, according to interviews with families. Only two had ever been breast-fed, and only one was being breast-fed at the time of the outbreak.

    Chandapiwa Mavundu, 28, a mother of three who has HIV, said she never breast-fed her son, Kabelo, because government nurses warned her not to.

    When he died at 8 months, after two months of withering diarrhea and vomiting, she could not muster the strength for the long walk to the graveyard. Instead, Mavundu stayed behind, she said, weeping amid the thatch-roofed huts and the dust and the goats as a hastily assembled parade of relatives carried her son’s shrunken body away in a tiny, cream-colored coffin.

    “That was the only boy child I had,” said Mavundu, who has sad, wide-set eyes and long braids that dangle past her shoulders. “I loved him very much.”

    The medical records kept by Mavundu and other families here echoed the finding of the U.S. investigators: Government clinics often ran out of cans of formula, forcing parents and grandparents to buy cow’s milk or feed their children with diluted porridge or even flour and water.

    Many of the babies had recurrent sicknesses and registered steep drops in their growth patterns during their final months. When the diarrhea struck, it was severe, prolonged and difficult for even doctors to cure. One child survived diarrhea only to die soon after from pneumonia, another disease that breast-feeding helps prevent.

    “Since I was a girl, I can’t remember a time when we lost so many kids,” said Ntselang Swimbo, 66, whose 9-month-old grandson died during the outbreak. “Once a kid got diarrhea, you knew the chance of surviving was almost zero.”
    Promoting Formula

    The vast diamond reserves in this landlocked southern African nation have allowed Botswana’s government to build a safety net unmatched on the continent, offering its 1.8 million citizens cradle-to-grave support for education and health care. And though it has one of the world’s highest rates of HIV, with one in four adults infected, it has some of Africa’s most celebrated programs to combat AIDS, including effective measures to prevent mothers from infecting their children during pregnancy and birth.

    The country was also a pioneer in the international drive to protect babies at risk of becoming infected through breast-feeding. In 1997, the United Nations began urging new mothers with HIV to use formula wherever supplies could be provided safely and reliably. Botswana, with an extensive public water system, good roads and a legacy of competent governance, joined the UNICEF-led effort and agreed to pay for the program as a standard service to new mothers.

    There were skeptics. Some international public health experts, including Coovadia, cautioned that few Africans had the means to prepare formula in a sanitary manner — a process that requires access to clean water, utensils, formula powder and heat for sterilization.

    And even for those who could make formula safely, some experts warned, breast-feeding’s other health benefits could not easily be replaced. A study by Coovadia and other South African researchers published in the medical journal Lancet in August 1999 found that breast milk alone, when not mixed with other foods, was no more likely to infect children than formula.

    But Botswana’s health officials were determined to begin the programs. In a recent interview, Health Minister Sheila D. Tlou angrily recalled a conference of international policymakers in Montreal a month after the Lancet article appeared. Some favored urging mothers with HIV in rich countries to use formula while telling those in poorer, less-developed ones to breast-feed.

    “We saw red!” Tlou said. She recalled asking other participants in the meeting: “Why are you sentencing all of our children to death? And why are you sentencing all of us to psychological damage in knowing that we were the ones who infected them?”

    The program started slowly because few women were willing to be tested for a virus that at the time was a death sentence. But as Botswana expanded the availability of antiretroviral drugs, which can dramatically extend and improve lives, HIV testing gradually became routine for pregnant women.

    Those with the virus received a series of antiretroviral pills in the final weeks of their pregnancies, and their newborn children received a dose of syrup laced with another powerful anti-AIDS drug in their first hours of life.

    The rate of HIV among babies born to mothers with the virus fell from 40 percent in 2002 to 6 percent. Demand for the free government formula soared.

    Among the beneficiaries was Mavundu. She didn’t have reliably sterile utensils or a stove, as U.N. agencies envisioned in their policy statements. But she did have access to firewood for cooking. And the seemingly clean water that flowed from a communal tap was just an eight-minute walk from her compound, consisting of round, dirt-floor huts and a fenced yard that she shared with her family and its livestock, including packs of voracious chickens.

    Unusually for rural Africa, there was also a government clinic nearby and, she was told, a reliable supply of Nan, a popular formula marketed by the international food group Nestlé, to keep her playful, chubby-cheeked son strong and healthy.

    But it was a promise, Mavundu soon discovered, that the government was unable to keep.

    “Sometimes it was there,” she recalled. “Sometimes it was not there.”
    A Shifting Consensus

    The government later blamed hitches in its contracting system for the formula shortages. But supply was not the only problem uncovered by the investigators from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which announced its findings at a scientific conference in Los Angeles in February.

    Testing of government water pipes in 26 villages in northeastern Botswana found contamination in every one, apparently caused by flooding during the heavy rainy season. Tests of the stools of sick babies also found dangerous waterborne pathogens such as cryptosporidium and an especially virulent strain of E. coli.

    Investigators determined that it was mainly the babies who were not breast-fed who got sick from the dirty water. Among a group of infants at one hospital, those admitted for diarrhea were 50 times more likely to be fed formula or cow’s milk than those admitted for other ailments. Cow’s milk is more difficult for babies to digest and lacks the antibodies found in breast milk.

    In one village the team visited, 30 percent of the formula-fed babies had died; none of those being breast-fed had.

    The report also reflected the shifting scientific consensus on breast-feeding. In the years since Botswana began its formula-feeding program, studies have increasingly shown that the risk of HIV transmission comes mainly from the combination of breast milk and other foods, such as formula and solids, that damage the lining of a baby’s intestines, inviting infection.

    In one study in Botswana, breast-fed babies contracted HIV at a slightly higher rate than those fed with formula, but formula-fed babies were more likely to die. By the time the children in the study reached 18 months, similar numbers from both groups were alive and free of HIV.

    Putting a mother on an effective combination of antiretroviral drugs, which are widely available in Botswana and some other African nations, also dramatically cuts the risk of transmission through breast-feeding — likely to less than 2 percent, Coovadia said.

    “You can protect kids, and you can give them the benefits of breast-feeding,” he said.

    UNICEF, after distributing 365,000 packs of formula in eight African countries — and providing training and technical assistance to the program in Botswana — began phasing out its infant-feeding programs in 2002.

    UNICEF officials also participated in an October 2006 conference that issued new guidelines reemphasizing the importance of breast-feeding and warning that formula can be dangerous in all but the most developed, reliably sanitary settings.

    “There are very few places where those conditions exist,” Alan Court, director of programs for UNICEF, said in an interview from New York.

    Health officials in Botswana remained unconvinced. Tlou, the health minister, said the outbreak was a one-time occurrence that should not, by itself, dictate a new policy. Officials instead are focusing on making formula feeding safer by encouraging women to boil water and feed their babies using cups, which are easier to clean than bottles.

    She also said the ministry will monitor emerging studies to determine if a change is warranted. “We are amenable to research, especially our own research,” she said.

    The debate, which has consumed global public health officials for years, has not reached the grieving mothers of Nkange village. None expressed any suspicions about water contamination or about the dangers of feeding formula rather than breast milk to babies.

    “It was just an outbreak,” Swimbo said.

    Mavundu, who is pregnant again, has reached the same conclusion. Her new baby is due in October.

    “I think it’s a boy,” she said, smiling, with her hand on her rounded belly.

    Since the loss of Kabelo, Mavundu has also started on a combination of antiretroviral drugs that should control her AIDS symptoms and also make breast-feeding far safer. But no one has told her that.

    When rainy season arrives in the first months of her new baby’s life, she said, “I know that I will give the Nan.”

  7. Dr. Maniotis’ comments to the article:

    *Question:

    Can you be “HIV” positive with a value of 2 consecutive tests exceeding or equaling 30pg/ml p24 protein versus 29pg/ml of p24 protein, and do you need toxic antiretrovirals if you have a consistent value of 30pg/ml value versus a consistent p24 value of 29pg/ml or lower? Why are healthy control cells considered by the DAIDS culturing manual to be 29pg/ml or less on consecutive tests while diseased,’HIV’ infected cells are valued at 30pg/ml or more (*see below).

    Does anyone know if these woman who were dissuaded from breast feeding and who tested positive for “HIV” were tested according to The DAIDS 1997 official “HIV” culturing manual, where it says, under quality control, Section VI, page 45, “Do not use PHA stimulated PBMC older than 3 days post stimulation when testing them for the absence of HIV from your healthy donor source,” and in the Reporting Results Section (section VII), a rationale follows that apparently employs both healthy (or non-infected cells) and infected cells-although I don’t think anybody tests intentionally non-“infected cells”) in a manner that is rational or what we would considered CONTROLLED. For example:

    Cultures whose supernatant meet one of the following criteria are considered culture positive IF:

    “Two consecutive HIV p24 antigen VQA CORRECTED values of > 30 pg/ml (read: from a healthy donor source), of which the second value is at least four times greater than the first value or “out of range” (O.D.>2) or

    “Two consecutive HIV p24 antigen VQA CORRECTED values (read: from a healthy donor source) that are “out of range (Optical density.> 2); or

    “Three consecutive HIV p24 antigen VQA CORRECTED values of > 30 pg/ml (read: from a healthy donor source), where neither consecutive value is > four times the previous sample, but the third value is at least four times greater than the first,”

    Would you consider a sample negative (read: from a healthy donor source) if the 3 consecutive HIV p24 antigen VQA corrected values read (first test) 25 pg/ml, and (second test) 15 pg/ml, (third test) 5 pg/ml?

    Would you use these cells as uninfected controls?

    Asked another way, are these control cells considered non-infected if they read 25 on the first reading, and 15 on the second and 5 on the third?

    Try a second sample using the first criterion stated above:

    “Two consecutive HIV p24 antigen VQA CORRECTED values of > 30 pg/ml, of which the second value is at least four times greater than the first value or out of range” (O.D.>2)

    First sample =6pg/ml: second sample)=23pg/ml

    Yes? No? Maybe better get other “healthy cells” than go with a 6 and a 23? Or are these two readings enough to say, “Aw-what the heck-they aren’t over 30pg/ml and the second series isn’t quite 4 times greater that the first value of 6, so I will just tell the doc that they are negative, and will tell the patient nothing about it?

    With much appreciation,

    Andy

    Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D.
    Program Director in the Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer
    Department of Pathology, and Bioengineering
    University of Illinois at Chicago
    Chicago, IL 60607

  8. THE POWER OF PSEUDO-SCIENCE IN AIDS DIAGNOSTICS

    Beldeu Singh

    The question by Dr Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D. (Program Director in the Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer, Department of Pathology, and Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Chicago

    Chicago, IL 60607) raises the specter of pseudo-science and how it can be used to prey on ignorance and build a multi-billion dollar industry. It is about deciding whether you are HIV-positive based on a cut-off in the reading of a test that tests for the amount of a protein called p24. His poser:-

    Can you be “HIV” positive with a value of 2 consecutive tests exceeding or equaling 30pg/ml p24 protein versus 29pg/ml of p24 protein, and do you need toxic antiretroviral if you have a consistent value of 30pg/ml value versus a consistent p24 value of 29pg/ml or lower? Why are healthy control cells considered by the DAIDS culturing manual to be 29pg/ml or less on consecutive tests while diseased, ‘HIV’ infected cells are valued at 30pg/ml or more (*see below).

    Does anyone know if these women who were dissuaded from breast feeding and who tested positive for “HIV” were tested according to The DAIDS 1997 official “HIV” culturing manual, where it says, under quality control, Section VI, page 45, “Do not use PHA stimulated PBMC older than 3 days post stimulation when testing them for the absence of HIV from your healthy donor source,” and in the Reporting Results Section (section VII), a rationale follows that apparently employs both healthy (or non-infected cells) and infected cells-although I don’t think anybody tests intentionally non-“infected cells”) in a manner that is rational or what we would considered CONTROLLED. For example:

    Cultures whose supernatant meet one of the following criteria are considered culture positive IF:

    “Two consecutive HIV p24 antigen VQA CORRECTED values of > 30 pg/ml (read: from a healthy donor source), of which the second value is at least four times greater than the first value or “out of range” (O.D.>2); Or

    “Two consecutive HIV p24 antigen VQA CORRECTED values (read: from a healthy donor source) that are “out of range (Optical density.> 2); Or

    “Three consecutive HIV p24 antigen VQA CORRECTED values of > 30 pg/ml (read: from a healthy donor source), where neither consecutive value is > four times the previous sample, but the third value is at least four times greater than the first,”

    Would you consider a sample negative (read: from a healthy donor source) if the 3 consecutive HIV p24 antigen VQA corrected values read (first test) 25 pg/ml, and (second test) 15 pg/ml, (third test) 5 pg/ml?

    Would you use these cells as uninfected controls? (You see red when rephrasing the question).

    Asked another way, are these control cells considered non-infected if they read 25 on the first reading, and 15 on the second and 5 on the third?

    Try a second sample using the first criterion stated above: (And the poser becomes more intriguing).

    “Two consecutive HIV p24 antigen VQA CORRECTED values of > 30 pg/ml, of which the second value is at least four times greater than the first value or out of range” (O.D.>2)

    First sample =6pg/ml: second sample) = 23pg/ml

    Yes? No? Maybe better get other “healthy cells” than go with a 6 and a 23? Or are these two readings enough to say, “Aw-what the heck-they aren’t over 30pg/ml and the second series isn’t quite 4 times greater that the first value of 6, so I will just tell the doc that they are negative, and will tell the patient nothing about it?

    With much appreciation,

    Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D.

    Program Director in the Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer

    Department of Pathology and Bioengineering

    University of Illinois at Chicago

    Chicago, IL 60607

    Well, pseudo-science does work if you have institutions behind you or rather in front of you to endorse the tests. After all, most people and politicians are not science literate up to that level at which they will pose questions based on basic science that can help reveal the truth and reveal whether the test is based on science or pseudo-science. And there is no need to worry about the doctors who will recommend these tests and prescribe the pharmaceutically prescribed “medication”. Doctors are not always scientists. Most of them are not trained as researchers or scientists. They are trained to administer the test and prescribe.

    The first part of the AIDS pseudo-science is found in a statement by Dr. Gallo. Dr Robert Gallo, the American government researcher whose team developed and marketed the first test kits, says in a letter in this month’s Harper’s that “no test in medicine is perfect, but done correctly and with a confirmatory second test, the HIV blood test developed in our laboratory comes close.” The fact is there are no confirmatory tests. The so-called “confirmatory test”, called western blot, relied on the same principle as the test kits it was supposed to be checking and so was liable to the same kind of false-positive reactions. These test kits carry the same disclaimer – that they cannot be used to diagnose and treat AIDS. Subsequent research has repeatedly confirmed this problem: more than 60 conditions that cause such false-positives have been documented. One is malaria. Another is flu. Another is tuberculosis, which produces symptoms of AIDS as defined in Africa and is immensely widespread among impoverished people (see HIV Test Bogus – Based on Circular Reasoning, May 23 2006, Health Supreme).

    As I predicted (see: AIDS, NON-HIV AIDS AND PRESCRIPTION AIDS), there will never be a vaccine for AIDS – “The only logical hypothesis is that toxic chemicals, whether or not they are approved for medication, if they generate free radicals in the body that decrease white blood cell count or kill T4 cells or damage the cell walls of cells of the immune system or the endocrine system will generate AIDS. It results in immune deficiencies or immune disorders or damage to the genetic material and explains the variation of the symptoms of AIDS and that also means there will be no such thing as an AIDS vaccine”. How can there be a vaccine for a condition that is precipitated by excess free radicals? But what is peculiar to these HIV tests?

    “It never proved possible to validate the tests by culturing, purifying and analyzing particles of the purported virus from patients who test positive, then demonstrating that these are not present in patients who test negative. This was despite heroic efforts to make the virus reveal itself in patients with Aids or at risk of Aids, in which their immune cells were stimulated for weeks in laboratory cultures using a variety of agents.

    After the cells had been activated in this way, HIV pioneers found some 30 proteins in filtered material that gathered at a density characteristic of retroviruses. They attributed some of these to various parts of the virus. But they never demonstrated that these so-called “HIV antigens” belonged to a new retrovirus.

    So, out of the 30 proteins, how did they select the ones to be defined as being from HIV? The answer is shocking, and goes to the root of what is probably the biggest scandal in medical history. They selected those that were most reactive with antibodies in blood samples from Aids patients and those at risk of Aids.

    This means that “HIV” antigens are defined as such not on the basis of being shown to belong to HIV, but on the basis that they react with antibodies in Aids patients. Aids patients are then diagnosed as being infected with HIV on the basis that they have antibodies” (see: HIV Test Bogus – Based on Circular Reasoning, May 23 2006, Health Supreme).

    The circular reasoning appears sound but there is science to suggest or even clearly indicate that the Gallo isolate does not contain a virus but possibly polymer actin proteins produced by white blood cells under oxidative stress, the kind of oxidative stress found in malnourished people and in people recovering from malaria or flu etc. The antibodies in such people are an auto-immune response of their body to these polymer proteins. Hence they respond clinically to proper nutritional interventions (see: Are Malnutrition and Oxidative Stress the Cause of gp41, gp120 and gp160 in Robert Gallo’s HIV Isolate?). Now they are saying that they have only detected virus particles.

    The AIDS posse claims that the HIV is an enveloped virus but to date no one has seen it under the electron microscope and no one has observed its budding process. It is supposed to a big virus because, they claim that it is complex and can integrate its genetic material into the host DNA and later on this genetic material can slice itself out and become re-activated. All these processes require an intricate enzyme system. Such enzymes have not been proven either.

    And there are many AIDS sufferers who do not have the virus that the AIDS posse claims is virulent and targets the immune system and impairs it sufficiently to allow opportunistic infections to establish in the patients, especially carcinomas and infections of the lungs. Yet 5000 researchers recently signed a document declaring that the HIV is the sole cause of AIDS. Such is the power of pseudo-science.

    Basic secondary school science education can equip you to know that for a virus or any pathogen to be the sole cause of a disease, it must be found in every patient and it must be isolated and used to re-infect healthy hosts to prove that it is in fact the sole agent causing the disease. Dr. Gallo has testified that the so called HIV virus is found in only 40% of the cases and it is not detected directly but its existence is assumed by only looking for the p24 protein in the supernatants. And is that protein merely a protein or an antigen…well lets see…by studying their recommended diagnostic test as described above by Dr Andrew Maniotis.

    So…must you be given toxic antiretroviral when you have 30pg/ml p24 protein versus 29pg/ml of p24 protein or if you have a consistent value of 30pg/ml value versus a consistent p24 value of 29pg/ml or lower? And if they read 25 on the first reading and 15 on the second and 5 on the third are you to be treated as non-infected?

    If the antigen is virus specific as they claim it to be, then why must the diagnosis be based on the amount of p24 protein rather than on its presence or absence? Why? I hope your doctor or your health authorities can explain that to you. It cannot be an antigen specific to the HIV and it may be nothing more than a polymer actin protein associated with oxidative stress. .

    It appears to be a case of a bogus virus and a bogus antigen with bogus tests that have established a legitimate industry.

    We need to better understand the issue of protecting infants from infections. Lauric acid and another 7-10% is a medium chain capric acid. Lauric acid gets converted inside the human system into monolaurins – the best fat that mother’s milk has (Halden and Lieb, Influence of biologically improved coconut oil products on blood cholesterol levels in human volunteers, Nutr. Diet, 1961; 3: 75-88).

    Other than mother’s milk monolaurins are found only in coconut oil. New born babies and infants depend on the monolaurins for their immune system development and their capacity to withstand any infection (Hierholzer and Kabara, In vitro effects of Monolaurins on enveloped RNA and DNA viruses, J. Food Safety 1982; 4: 1-12). In addition, coconut oil can be digested by the salivary lipase, getting absorbed very fast to give energy like carbohydrates and does not require pancreatic lipase to digest it or to break it down into monoglycerides. Coconut oil is an important functional food for AIDS patients.

    “Coconut oil contains triglycerides which are broken down to monoglycerides and free fatty acids in the liver. If the body needs energy, these can be metabolized to yield energy, unlike long chain fatty acids that may end up as circulating lipoproteins that can get oxidized in the blood and posed a risk to the heart or the cardiovascular system.

    The monoglycerides, such as monolaurin and free fatty acids have antimicrobial properties as well. The most active are monolaurin and monocaprin. Coconut oil, in its natural form has no antimicrobial properties but these properties are found in the components after it is ingested in the body. These compounds can decrease viral loads by destroying the lipid coats of lipid coated viruses and by inactivation of enveloped viruses. Hence coconut must be integrated to form the anti-AIDS diet” (ref: FENTON MEDICINE, unpublished manuscript: see References).

    Logically, therefore nutritional intervention is the key and should form the basic thrust in responding to the AIDS problem. Resolution WHA57.14 that urged Member States, inter alia, to pursue policies and practices that promote integration of nutrition into a comprehensive response to HIV/AIDS is therefore considered urgent.

    References

    1. Kabara JJ, Fatty acids and Derivatives as Antimicrobial Agents, The Pharmacological Effect of Lipids, American Oil Chemists Society.
    2. Kabarra JJ, Antimicrobial Agents Derived from Fatty Acids, Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society 61.
    3. Thormar et al, Inactivation of Enveloped Viruses and Killing of Cells by Fatty Acids and Monoglycerides, 1987, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 31.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s