Email: mpwright8 at aol dot com
[Michael Wright, of Norman, Oklahoma, was awarded four U.S. federal research grants for computerized health risk assessment projects in the early 1990s. Two of them were for AIDS. Here is a news article about one of his funded projects. Since then his thinking about AIDS has changed.]
How can anyone take the AIDS establishment seriously? Look at all the contradictions, which are documented in this blog.
1. It is said that the presence of antibodies indicates that the immune system has conquered the disease, but in the world of HIV mythology, the presence of "HIV antibodies" has been taken to demonstrate infection by a deadly virus.
2. An official of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) tells us that vaccines stimulate the production of antibodies, but a US Public Health Service official says that the "belief that successful vaccines work by producing antibodies is almost certainly wrong."
3. They say that HIV does its damage by depleting CD4 cells, but people with normal CD4 counts can be diagnosed with "AIDS."
4. They say that HIV causes "AIDS," but HIV-negative people can be diagnosed as "AIDS" patients.
Update September 4, 2009
Now they are claiming that they have discovered some "good" antibodies which will cripple HIV.
A Review of News Reports & Government Websites Reveals Contradictions
An AP article, published in May 2009, informs us that “scientists are now trying to outflank the HIV/AIDS virus.”
It continues: “Unsuccessful at developing vaccines that cause the body's natural immune system to battle the virus, researchers are testing inserting a gene into the muscle that can cause it to produce protective antibodies against HIV.”
What do vaccines do?
CDC Says Vaccines Stimulate Antibodies to Prevent Illness
The CDC has had a large role in manipulating the public to accept the official belief system about AIDS.
An interesting CDC website has been taken down, but still can be found at the internet archive. It is written in very plain language. The CDC tells us that the purpose of a vaccine is to stimulate the body to make “antibodies against the weakened or dead germs in the vaccine.” Further, we are told that the “antibodies will know how to destroy” the real disease germs and will thus prevent illness.
The First Contradiction: Antibodies ?
It is strange that, for more than two decades, we have been told that those who test positive for “HIV antibodies” had been infected by the deadly virus HIV. These individuals are not being told that the antibodies are going to prevent disease. They are told that they should have expensive pharmaceutical remedies.
It is noteworthy that the May 2009 AP article reports that researchers are hoping for the vaccine to produce "protective antibodies against HIV." Had nature earlier created a new class of unprotective antibodies which have been used all these years for demonstrating infection by the HIV virus?
Why do those attempting to develop this vaccine think that their antibodies are going to be "protective" while the antibodies which they have been saying "confirm" the presence of HIV are not protective?
We’ve all heard the proverb, “oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive.”
The US Public Health Service does not keep its line straight.
The Second Contradiction: U.S. Public Health Service Spokesman Contradicts CDC
In an online BBC news article, Neil Nathanson, director of the US Office of AIDS Research, contradicts the CDC's statement about vaccines with this language: "The belief that successful vaccines work by producing antibodies is almost certainly wrong." See the last paragraph of the article.
What About Cell-Mediated Immunity?
Another type of immune system response to an organic pathogen is called cell-mediated immunity. This involves T-cell lymphocytes, which bind to the surface of the antigen. The official belief is that HIV does its damage by depleting these T-cells.
There are mysteries here. We are told on the one hand that depletion of T-cells is the consequence of infection by this virus, but according to the official diagnostic criteria for AIDS, one can be diagnosed with the disease and still have a normal T-cell count. Additionally, the criteria enable HIV-negative persons to be diagnosed as "AIDS" patients, under certain circumstances. Does this not sound fantastic?
It's interesting that in 1993 the CDC expanded the list of "AIDS indicator" diseases. One reason for this was that, in order to spread more fear in the population and crank up Congressional appropriations for AIDS spending by the CDC and other "health" agencies, they wanted to drive up the case count of women with "AIDS." They added cervical cancer to the list.
The Third Contradiction: CD4 Depletion?
From the New York Department of Health, here is a simplified statement of the official AIDS case definition. This statement reflects what was said in a CDC email to me. It says that an HIV-positive person should be diagnosed as an AIDS case when the person’s CD4 cell count falls below 200 cells/ml, or the person is diagnosed with any of the “AIDS-indicator” diseases. (CD4 cells are also called T-cells.)
It does not require a depleted CD4 cell count !
The Fourth Contradiction: HIV-Negative AIDS Patients
It also says: “A person who is HIV negative or of undetermined serostatus may be diagnosed with AIDS when other causes of immunodeficiency are ruled out and the person is definitively diagnosed with one of the AIDS indicator diseases listed above.“
With this kind of extreme flexibility in the diagnostic criteria, any HIV-negative woman afflicted with cervical cancer can be called an "AIDS" case and be counted on the statistical record as such, even if she has a normal CD4 cell count.
See the first four scans following this text. Some of the text from the scans is enlarged to make it readable. The scans are of the email I received from the CDC. It also confirms that the official "AIDS" definition requires neither being HIV-positive nor having a depleted T-cell count !
What Is the Truth?
I am a man of common sense. Common sense tells me that two contradictory statements cannot simultaneously be true.
Does the presence of antibodies indicate that a disease has been conquered, or does it indicate current infection by a deadly virus?
Do vaccines produce antibodies, or do they not produce antibodies?
Does HIV deplete CD4 cells, or does it not deplete CD4 cells?
In 2005 I discussed these questions in a letter in The Norman Transcript (of Oklahoma) with the headline “HIV/AIDS belief system a bundle of paradoxes.” Here is the news article to which my letter was responding. In the late 90s I discussed the vaccine paradox in this article at the Sumeria website.
Some Interesting News Links
2006 News Report -- Malaria "Helping to Spread AIDS"
"Researchers studying the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS in one region of Kenya were puzzled when risky sexual behaviour was not in itself sufficient to explain the rate of transmission."
Ah. Very puzzling indeed. See the article.
Simple Solution to the "Puzzle"
Here is the link to an abstract of a paper presented at the 2004 International Conference on AIDS. The title of the paper is “False-positive HIV serological tests in acute malaria patients in Ethiopia.” Maybe some of these puzzled "researchers" ought to take a look at it!
"Experts" Finally Getting a Clue?
Jan 2008 AP Headline: "Experts rethinking billions spent on AIDS"
Read the article.
Michael Wright's History of Funded Research About STDs and Computer Risk Assessment
From the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, in the early 90s I received four federal grants to support the testing and further development of software for assessing current risk of infection by HIV and other STDs. Since receiving these grants I have become very skeptical about what passes for "health science" in the USA. I provide this documentation only to demonstrate that I have acquired some professional experience in these matters. Here is a 1995 AP article describing my fourth grant:
Abstract of 1991 article in the journal AIDS Education and Prevention:
Abstract of 1997 article in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine:
1993 letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association:
Scans #3 and #4, followed by an enlargement of the abstract, are from a 1993 conference paper I presented at the Oklahoma Symposium on Artificial Intelligence. The paper reports finding from my Phase I SBIR grant, supporting the testing of software for personal assessment of risk for current HIV infection.
My HIV software project was briefly mentioned in the premier issue of the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, (1994 Jan-Feb; 1(1): 8-27). The article classified the software as a focused Medical Diagnostic Decision Support (MDDS) system with narrow application domains.
Gay Writer Denounces "HIV Homofascist Identity"
The article about the HIV homofascist identity appeared in Magnus, a San Francisco gay publication.
In 1993 Cosmopolitan Bought an Article From Me About AIDS and Then Never Published It
See scans #5 and #6 for documentation and details about this. My article assured women that they were at extremely low risk of contracting AIDS from vaginal sex. It appears that Cosmo was scared away by militant lesbians from ACT-UP.
NOTE: Text with more details will follow the images.
Scan #1: Email from CDC (followed by enlargement).
(Click on image for better enlargement.)
Scan #2: 2nd Page of CDC Email
CDC Propaganda Campaign Obstructed the Marketing of my Risk Assessment Software
Scans #4 is the abstract of the conference paper included in the Proceedings of the 7th Oklahoma Symposium on Artificial Intelligence. The software was my creation and I had the legal right to market it. None of the other participants in the research had a proprietary or financial interest in the software. Their participation was supported by grant funds.
I did not market this software nor either of the other software systems tested under the four SBIR grants. The reason was that, influenced by the CDC, the public health bureaucracies in the nation became wedded to the false notion that "all sexually active people are equally at risk" for HIV. If that were true, then there certainly be no use for software of the nature I had developed, intended to be a preliminary screen.
Regarding my hepatitis B project, the ridiculous practice of vaccinating all infants for HBV had begun to be implemented. My concept was to vaccinate only adolescents and adults at elevated risk for HBV. The drug companies, of course, have wanted to sell as many vaccines and diagnostic kits as they could.
1996 Wall Street Journal Article About AIDS
One of the few pieces of responsible AIDS journalism from the mainstream press was published by The Wall Street Journal on May 1, 1996. The article exploded the myth of "universality of risk" for AIDS and won a Pulitzer Prize. Unfortunately, it didn't make a dent in wasteful AIDS spending. I provided some more information about this in a letter published by the WSJ on June 6, 1996:
Scan # 3: Cover of Artificial Intelligence Conference Proceedings
(Click on the image to enlarge.)
After this payment was made, Cosmo exercised its option to buy the copyright, and paid me an additional $300.
Details About Cosmopolitan Episode
In 1993 I became a friend of Dr. Bob Gould, a prominent New York City psychiatrist who is now deceased. Gould was impressed with my knowledge of HIV transmission risks and with the fact that I had a federal grant for an AIDS research project. He was also a friend of Cosmo publisher Helen Gurley Brown and suggested to her that I do an article for the magazine.
This was a writer's dream. Later I actually received a phone call from articles editor Myra Appleton and she offered me the assignment of writing an article about AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. She knew that my goal would be to deflate unjustified fear and hysteria about these diseases.
I completed this article and Appleton accepted it after I revised it in accordance with her suggestions. I was paid a total of $1800 for it. She told me that the international editors liked it too, and that it would be published in April 1994. It was never published and I was given no explanation about why it was never published.
Why Did Cosmo Bury the Article?
In January 1988 Bob Gould had published an article in Cosmo about AIDS and he assured women that they were at extremely low risk for contracting AIDS through vaginal sex. As a result of this, lesbians in ACT-UP launched a campaign against Gould and Cosmo. They picketed the Cosmo headquarters while chanting the slogan: "Cosmo kills and murderers of women." Police barricades were necessary to keep them from storming the office. The ACT-UP protest was reported on page 167 of The Social Impact of AIDS in the United States, by the National Research Council (1993).
ACT-UP was also able to wield influence within the American Psychiatric Association in its campaign of reprisals. APA members friendly to ACT-UP instigated a move to revoke Gould's license to practice psychiatry, and he was required to defend himself in an informal hearing in Washington, DC. Although he did not lose his license, he was asked to step down from his membership on the APA's gay/lesbian committee. Gould also suffered anonymous death threats over the phone and began to live in fear for his personal safety.
Gould had been one of the first members of the APA to speak up for removing homosexuality from the list of recognized mental disorders. This New York Times article confirms Gould's early support of the gay community. Go here to read more about the vicious ACT-UP campaign.
Gay Writer Denounces Tyrannical Behavior in Gay Movement
Gay writer Justin Raimondo describes the tyrannical streak in the "gay liberation" movement with his article entitled "Gay Victimology and the Liberal Kulturkampf."
A Recommended AIDS Dissent Article