|
|
|
Is AIDS a 100% black disease?
The simple observation that Washington, DC, the health care capitol of the world, the national center for health care professionals and health statistics, the city which spends more money per capita for health care than most blacks of the world EARN, the one with more politicians and lobbyists per square inch than any other land, is also the AIDS capitol, should make us question some basic political "facts". From this we might postulate the following theorems:
We can test these theorems by cross-checking data from the 1996 US Statistical Abstract for other states, like ND, SD, Montana, and Wyoming, etc., whose "AIDS" column is marked "N.A.", which can mean either "not applicable" or "not available". Of course AIDS is applicable to these and other states, so then why would such data not be "available"? The reality is that these states had NO AIDS cases, not that the data was not "applicable" or "available". In a state with as small a population as North Dakota, just ONE Aids case would give that state an AIDS rate of .17 per 100,000 population, an easy figure to understand and report. By the time The 2006 US Statistical Abstract was published, this category had been changed from "N/A", to "S", which now means "Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision", and the number of states in this category increased from only four, to 10, adding Alaska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Utah, and Vermont. Since 8 other states [Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, West Virginia, and Wisconsin], whose AIDS death rates were high enough to be listed, had rates lower than 2.0, it's a good bet that "S" actually means "No AIDS cases". In addition, even though these are mostly White states, there are enough or more than enough other races [specifically blacks and Hispanics] to account for most if not all AIDS deaths in those states. The number of Asians and Whites in DC is too small for them to be a significant part of the AIDS epidemic in Washington, which leaves the 82% who were black and the 10% who were Hispanic as the major contributors, providing a quick and easy way to estimate their AIDS death rates:
Is it possible that blacks in North Dakota have not yet gotten AIDS because they've not been in sexual contact with AIDS-carrying blacks of the major cities? Or is their sexual behavior influenced by the large percentage of Whites around them, reducing extra-marital sex as well as AIDS? Or is it possible that there's another factor at work here, in addition to this clear and obvious link between blacks and AIDS? Or were there actually 7 AIDS deaths amongst blacks in North Dakota which weren't reported to health officials, or which weren't known to be AIDS? An AIDS rate of 25.5 in 1993 in Florida with a population of 13.5 million is 3,443 AIDS deaths per year, yet if the 1.9 million blacks there died at the rate of 126, there would have been 2,394 AIDS deaths, plus another 1,020 out of the 1.7 million Hispanics with an AIDS rate of 60, for a total of 3,414 AIDS deaths. Since this is within 1% of the actual rate, our estimate for DC is plausible. In Colorado, with an AIDS rate of 10.8 and a population of 3.5 million, there were 378 AIDS deaths that year. With 147k blacks at 126, 19 of these deaths would have been blacks, and with 680k Hispanics at 60, another 368 AIDS deaths ought to have Hispanics if our theorem is correct, for a total of 387 predicted AIDS deaths, 2% higher than actual AIDS deaths. Our theorem is tracking nicely. STATES WITH AIDS DEATH RATES HIGHER THAN PREDICTED Just like Washington, New York always sticks out like a sore thumb on statistics like this, spending almost as much for education while still producing some of the lowest scoring students in the WORLD, not just the nation. So just as expected New York also spends gobs of money for health care and ends up with an AIDS death rate of 37.4, FAR larger than would be predicted by their known and reported percentage of blacks and Hispanics. At an AIDS death rate of 126 per 100k blacks, there should have been only 3,906 AIDS deaths out 3.1 million blacks in New York, a state wide rate of only 21.6. The 1.8 million Hispanics at a rate of 60 would have had 1,080 AIDS deaths which increases this statewide rate to 27.5, so the actual AIDS death rate in New York is 36% higher than predicted, seriously challenging our theorem. New Jersey with 28 AIDS deaths per 100k population and a population of 7.8 million had 2,184 AIDS deaths annually that year. With 1.1 million blacks whose average AIDS death rate is 126, 1,386 of these deaths should be blacks, plus 807k Hispanics with an AIDS death rate of 60 or 48 more AIDS deaths, for a total of 1,434 predicted AIDS deaths. So actual AIDS deaths in New Jersey are 58% higher than predicted, an even more serious challenge to our theorem. Massashusetts: 12.9, pop of 6 million, 774 AIDS deaths, 347k blacks at 126 is 437 deaths, 314k Hispanics at 60 is 19, for a total of 456 predicted AIDS deaths. Actual AIDS deaths In Massachusetts were 70% higher than predicted, raising serious questions about our theorem. Minnesota: 4.5, pop of 4.5 million, 203 AIDS deaths, 100k blacks at 126 is 126 AIDS deaths, plus 62k Hispanics a 60 = 37, for a total of 163 predicted AIDS deaths, so actual deaths were 25% higher than predicted. What other racial group might be more likely to get AIDS than Whites, as well as be present in significant enough numbers in Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey, to increase their AIDS rate by that much? It's well documented by jews themselves that jews have 112 hereditary diseases which no other race has, while blacks have only two, and Whites have none. Could our theorem that blacks are the AIDS carriers be wrong, and might it actually be jews instead? Could the percentage of jews in Washington, DC, be so high that it's THEY who are the original AIDS carriers who gave AIDS to blacks there? If jews have 56 TIMES as many hereditary diseases as blacks, then should not this make us suspicious of the role played by jews who demanded in 1957 that jews not be separated as a separate race and thus may be concealing their own rate of extinction? An AIDS rate of 20.2 in 1993 in California with a population of 30.9 million is 6,242 AIDS deaths per year, yet if the 2.4 million blacks died at a rate of 126, there would have been 3,024 AIDS deaths, plus 7.8 million Hispanics at 60 is another 4,680, for a total of 7,704 AIDS deaths, 23% higher than actual. Is it possible that the actual AIDS death rate of Hispanics, many of whom just immigrated [or broke in illegally] from Mexico, is [(6,242 - 3,893) / 7.8 million] = 30 per 100k, half that of Hispanics in DC and Florida? When broken down by White Hispanic vs. non-White Hispanic, does California confirm our theorem?
The answer is NO! A different AIDS rate for Hispanic Whites doesn't provide the answer. STATES WITH PREDICTED AIDS DEATH RATES HIGHER THAN ACTUAL In 1993, Iowa, with an AIDS death rate of 2.6 and a population of 2.8 million had 73 AIDS deaths. If the 52k blacks there died at the same rate as blacks in Florida and DC, there were 66 deaths of blacks, and for the 37k Hispanics at 60 is another 22, for a total of 88, 20% higher than actual. The AIDS rate in Iowa decreased to 1.0 by 2004 and the population increased to 3 million for a total 30 AIDS deaths per year. If the 68,000 blacks there died at a rate of 42, one third of the high of 126 that they did in DC, there would have been 22 AIDS deaths per year, plus 104k Hispanics at a rate of 20, or 21 deaths, for a total of 43, 43% higher than actual. An AIDS rate of 14.2 in 1993 in Texas with a population of 17.7 million is 2,513 AIDS deaths, yet if the 2.1 million blacks there died at the rate of 126, there would have been 2,646 dead blacks, plus 4.6 million Hispanics at 60 is another 2,760 deaths, for a total of 5,406. The predicted rate is 2.2 times higher than the actual rate. No jews? Louisiana, 14.7, pop of 4.3 million, is 632 AIDS deaths, 1.34 million blacks at 126 is 1,688 AIDS deaths, 84k Hispanics at 60 is 50 AIDS deaths, for a total of 1,738, almost three times as many predicted as actual deaths. Missouri, 8.1, pop of 5.2 million , 421 AIDS deaths, 565k blacks at 126 is 71 deaths, 66k Hispanics at 60 is 40 AIDS deaths,for a total of 111, almost four times as many predicted as actual deaths. Is it the presence of Hispanics and not blacks in states like Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado which caused them to have an AIDS death rate an order of magnitude higher than states with no or few blacks and Hispanics like ND, SD, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Iowa, Nebraska: Arizona, 10.5, pop of 3.8 million, 399 AIDS deaths, 125k blacks at 126 is 16 deaths, 751k Hispanics at 60 is 451 AIDS deaths, for a total of 467 AIDS deaths, or 17% higher than actual AIDS deaths. Is it possible that the AIDS death rate for Hispanics in Arizona is [(399 - 16) / 751k] = 51 per 100k, about 15% lower than estimated for Hispanics in DC? New Mexico, 7.2, pop of 1.6 million, 115 AIDS deaths, 36k blacks at 126 is 45 deaths, 614k Hispanics at 60 is 368, for a total of 413, or 3.6 TIMES higher than actual deaths. Is it possible that [(115 - 45) / 614k] = 11.4 per 100k, about a sixth of that for Hispanics in DC? Nevada, 11.7, pop of 1.3 million ,152 AIDS deaths, 92k blacks at 126 is 116 deaths, 149k Hispanics at 60 is 89 deaths, or 205 AIDS deaths, so predicted deaths were 35% higher than actual deaths. Georgia, 18.1, pop of 6.8 million, 1,231 AIDS deaths, 1.9 million blacks at 126 is 2,394 deaths, 124k Hispanics at 60 is 7 deaths ,for a total of 2,401 deaths, 95% higher than actual deaths. If 100% of the AIDS deaths in Ga. were blacks, then they had an AIDS death rate of only 65, about half the TOTAL rate of DC. Nebraska 2.7, pop of 1.6 million, 43 AIDS deaths, 60 k blacks at 126 is 76 AIDS deaths, plus 42k Hispanics at 60 is 25.2, for a total of 101 predicted deaths, 2.3 x higher than actual. THE ANSWER IS NO. The high AIDS rate in those states cannot be explained by blacks and Hispanics, because even the most pessimistic estimate for their rate of AIDS deaths cannot be explained just by those populations alone. Which leaves us with only one possibility--JEWS! Even if we estimate that the AIDS rate for Hispanics is zero, states like Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, and Arkansas STILL have AIDS rates much lower than predicted, suggesting that the presence of Hispanics doesn't influence the AIDS rate. But states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada have AIDS rates much HIGHER than predicted. And what do they have in common? jews. The simple fact that the AIDS rate of 37.2 in New York with relatively few blacks and Hispanics is three times higher than states like South Carolina (at 12.7) with FAR more blacks, and four times higher than states like New Mexico (at 7.2) where more than a third of the population are Hispanics, seriously challenges if not negates our theorem. Why do states like California, New York, New Jersey, and Florida have sky high rates (up to TEN TIMES HIGHER), than states like Idaho, Utah, Alaska, and New Hampshire? JEWS. While there may be some correlation between the sex behavior of blacks and Whites which might cause blacks to get AIDS more often, this alone comes nowhere close to explaining the ten to forty fold difference in AIDS deaths from state to state. In most sexual activities, blacks are only 25-50% more likely than Whites to engage in risky sexual behavior, including homosexuality. The suggestion that blacks get AIDS more often because they use more of the illegal drugs which have been attributed to the AIDS pandemic than Whites is disputed by the fact that per capita, Whites use more of these drugs than blacks. Even so, such a minor difference if it did exist would hardly explain a forty fold variation in AIDS rates from state to state, or country to country [read: Germany]. Since jews demanded in 1958, and got, Congress and the Census Bureau to quit categorizing jews as a separate race, ethnic group, tribe, and religion, there's no official statistic for the percent of jews in these states. But the very low test scores in all standardized tests for these states enable us to calculate the percentage of jews VERY accurately--much more accurately than jews themselves can calculate them. Voila, once these percentages are plugged in for each state, we discover the following:
WHERE ARE 7-10 MILLION MISSING JEWS? The worldwide population of jews in 1988 was 18.1 million. At the normal growth rate of 1.5% per year, there would have been 21.8 million by 2006, and at only 1% per year there would have been 23.8 million. Yet jew sources report that there were only 13.3 million. So where were the other 8.5 to 10.5 million jews? Did they all die from AIDS? The above analysis suggests that this is precisely what happened to them. What other explanation can there be? And why did the news media, which spends prodigious amounts of energy chasing down a supposed 6 million holocausted jews from more than half a century ago COMPLETELY ignore this most damaging holocaust [with holocaust being a reference only to the deaths of jews and nobody else, like the 264 million Christians who died in WWII], which eliminated up to 60% [SIXTY PERCENT] of the world's supply of jews? By 2002, the AIDS rate in states with the most jews decreased dramatically, whereas in the states with few jews there was a very small decrease, further evidence that AIDS decimated the jewish population, in the world, not just in the US. It's not that jews were dying at a slower rate--it was that there were fewer of them left alive. The same is true of the black populations, particularly Washington, DC, where the percent who are blacks plunged from 82% to less than 60% (along with the murder rate). But even with that reduction, Washington retained its title as both the AIDS Capitol of the US, as well as the Murder Capitol of the WORLD.
Even with an average AIDS rate for blacks of 27, states with many blacks and few jews like Mississippi, Florida, and Indiana, had average AIDS rates even lower than that. If blacks are the only ones with AIDS in those states, then their AIDS death rate in Mississippi is 21, in Florida is 25.5, and in Indiana is 18. This MIGHT be explained by their not being in contact with blacks in areas with higher risk to AIDS through sodomy and illicit drugs--or it may be that blacks have an even lower AIDS rate than predicted above, or about 20. Once adjusted for these anomalies, the AIDS rate for jews in 1993 must be increased to 220, meaning that jews are 11 TIMES more likely to die of AIDS than blacks, something you would never learn from the jew controlled "news" media. Why are jews being so silent about their own demise, when they still scream from the rooftops about being "holocausted" more than half a century ago? Of the 36,9990 AIDS deaths in 1993, 30,699 or 83% of them were jews and only 17% were blacks. In 2002, of the 14,210 AIDS deaths, 62% or 8,833 of them were jews and 38% were blacks. The number of Hispanics, Whites, Asians, and Indians who died of AIDS were statistically insignificant. The only explanation for this two thirds reduction in the AIDS rate in the US is that the primary target of AIDS, jews, were almost wiped out, having been reduced from 14 million to only 4 million.
Even if jews are 20% or 40% more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior, this doesn't even begin to explain the GREATER THAN FORTY FOLD difference in the AIDS death rate from state to state. Or perhaps risky behavior starts the process, then it mushrooms from there, but what most would rather believe is that God decided to show our primarily jewish "doctors" a thing or two, and created a disease that:
Before completing this analysis, it was expected that blacks and Hispanics would be the main victims of AIDS. It was a surprise to discover that Hispanics have almost no AIDS [other than what they, and what WHITES, get from jews and blacks].
Boston University to Evaluate Springfield AIDS Treatment Program November 11, 2002 Boston University will monitor an HIV/AIDS treatment program for the Springfield, Mass., Hispanic community to determine if culturally sensitive services targeted to Hispanic heroin users increase their entry into drug treatment, testing and prevention programs. It is hoped that the five-year study, funded by a $2.5 million Department of Health and Human Services grant to Tapestry Health Systems, will reduce the rate of HIV/AIDS in Springfield. Springfield, the 71st most populous city in the nation, is ranked 24th for its HIV/AIDS rate. Hispanics, who make up a quarter of Springfield’s population, make up more than half of the city’s residents with HIV/AIDS.The Body Boston University to Evaluate Springfield AIDS Treatment Program AIDS Death Rates by State and Racejews are 5 times more likely than blacks to die of AIDS
Did the Salk Vaccine Cause AIDS, KILLING 21.8 Million People Around the World
Or did JEWS cause AIDS?
http://www.who.int/wer/pdf/2000/wer7547.pdf Global AIDS surveillance Part I Global situation of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, end 2000 WHO and UNAIDS have estimated that by the end of 2000, the number of adults and children living with HIV/AIDS worldwide will reach 36.1 million people (Map 1). It isalso estimated that during 2000, 5.3 million people (in- cluding 600 000 children aged <15) became infected. HIV infections are now almost equally distributed between men and women, with an estimated 18.2 million men aged 15-49 living with HIV/AIDS. By the end of 2000, it is estimated that a total of 21.8 million adults and children will have died because of HIV/AIDS since the beginning of the epidemic. Mortality due to HIV contin- ued to increase, with an estimated 3 million deaths during 2000. Deaths in women also continues to increase, accounting for an estimated 52% of adult deaths due to HIV in 2000. As of 25 November 2000, a total of 2 312 860 AIDS cases have been officially reported to WHO (Tabl e 1 ).
Greatest Fraud ever committed by Government on its people Jack Perrine <Jack@minerva.com>
Another marvelous example of what happens when people condone lying
Jack
University Wire: from The Battalion, Texas A & M University
February 18, 1998
HEADLINE: AIDS research raises questions about origins, myths of illness
BYLINE: Stewart Patton, The Battalion, Texas A&M U.
DATELINE: College Station, Texas
News-papers around the globe last week reported that the first known
HIV-virus has been discovered in a blood sample taken from a man in 1959.
This discovery is another episode in the chain of events which former
Harvard professor of biochemistry Charles Thomas calls "the most morally
destructive fraud that has ever been perpetrated on young men and women of
the Western world."
To date, there is still no concrete evidence that HIV causes AIDS, and
researchers continue to ignore the possibility that AIDS may in fact be a
noninfectious disease.
What exactly is AIDS? University of California-Berkeley professor of
molecular biology Peter Duesberg said HIV is now named as the new cause of
thirty previously known diseases, including Kaposi's sarcoma, tuberculosis,
dementia, pneumonia, weight loss, diarrhea and leukemia.
If any of these previously known diseases now occurs in a patient who
has antibodies against HIV (but rarely any HIV), then his or her disease is
diagnosed as AIDS and is blamed on HIV.
With all of the AIDS rhetoric of the past decade, this simple truth may
shock you: there are no citations in any medical journals or books for the
hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS.
Duesberg's statistical evidence and verifiable data have never been
refuted; rather a media ready to pounce on "sex equals death" stories has
ignored him.
Duesberg shows HIV cannot cause AIDS because HIV does not destroy
T-cells in laboratory petri dishes even at thousands of times the
concentration found in humans.
Additionally, none of the 150 chimpanzees injected with HIV have AIDS
-- some approaching two decades of exposure -- while chimps injected with
other known human viral diseases contract the disease in 24 to 36 hours.
While the medical science establishment cannot conclusively prove that
AIDS has an infectious cause, Duesberg shows the many possible
noninfectious causes of the grab-bag of diseases now known as AIDS.
Using standard statistics, he shows that nearly all people who die of
AIDS have been users of heroin, cocaine, AZT (developed for cancer
chemotherapy but abandoned as too toxic), or amyl and butyl nitrates
(popular among homosexuals in the disco era).
Duesberg shows that AIDS does not meet even one of the classical
accepted criteria of an infectious disease.
Unlike conventional infectious diseases, AIDS is nonrandomly restricted
to males, which constitute 95 percent of those infected; there is no active
microbe common to all AIDS patients; no common group of target cells are
rendered nonfunctional; and there is no common, predictable pattern of AIDS
symptoms in patients of different risk groups.
How, then, have scientists come to accept the notion that HIV causes
AIDS? Bryan Ellison, co-author of Inventing the AIDS Virus with Duesberg
claims the Center for Disease Control, a $ 2 billion a year government
agency, has a bias towards epidemics of contagious diseases because of its
"great admiration and respect for the germ theory."
The germ theory of the late 19th century ended the era of infectious
diseases, which now account for less than one percent of all mortality in
the Western world. Because of the great success of virus hunters in curing
infectious diseases, Big Science has a bias towards microbial causes of
disease.
Big death tolls and big funding lead to what Steven Epstein in Impure
Science calls a science-in-haste. AIDS research is research driven by
exigency and in-your-face tactics from AIDS activists, all of which causes
the Center for Disease Control to fall back on what it knows best.
Is AIDS an isolated incident of mistakenly attributing infectious
causes to a noninfectious disease? Certainly not. Scurvy, which scientists
now know is a result of a vitamin-C deficiency, was once thought to be
spread by rats and unsanitary conditions aboard ships. The disease was
completely eradicated, however, once sailors were given daily doses of
limes (hence the sailors' nickname "limey").
Hidden in the annals of forgotten bad science is an epidemic that
anticipated the AIDS epidemic. SMON, a frightening disease that caused
nerve damage and paralysis, raged through Japan in the 1950s.
After nearly 20 years of ineffective virus-hunting, scientists finally
found that SMON is caused by the drug clioquinol, a medication that was
prescribed for stomach cramps. The epidemic's toll officially ended in 1973
with 11,007 victims, including thousands of fatalities.
The Center for Disease Control, which is now a main player in AIDS
research, predicted in 1976 that "swine flu" would devastate the country.
This announcement led to the immunization of 50 million Americans with
a vaccine known to have toxic side effects.
No flu epidemic materialized in the rest of the population, but
thousands of people had nerve damage and paralysis, and dozens died from
the toxic effects of the vaccine.
Over six billion dollars a year is being spent to fight AIDS. People
who test positive for HIV are given death sentences, and junior-high girls
are taught how to put condoms on bananas.
Will AIDS be a repeat of the SMON fiasco? For the sake of the 10,000
AIDS patients that are expected to die in the next year, scientists should
learn from the past and abandon the unproven HIV-AIDS hypothesis.
It is time to find the lime or the clioquinol instead of fruitlessly
chasing HIV.
|
|
|
Modified Wednesday, August 08, 2007 Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party
|
