For example, statistics for new AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) cases were always quoted as cumulative figures that could only get bigger, contrasting with the normal practice with other diseases of reporting annual figures, where any decline is clear at a glance. And despite the media's ongoing stridency about an epidemic out of control, the actual figures from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), for every category, were declining, and had been since a peak around 1988. And this was in spite of repeated redefinitions to cover more diseases, so that what wasn't AIDS one day became AIDS the next, causing more cases to be diagnosed. This happened five times from 1982 to 1993, with the result that the first nine months of 1993 showed as an overall rise of 5% what would otherwise i.e., by the 1992 definition have been a 33% drop. By 1997 the number of indicator diseases was 29. One of the new categories to be added was cervical cancer. (Militant feminists had been protesting that men received too much of the relief appropriations for AIDS victims.) Nobody was catching anything new, but the headlines blared heterosexual women as the fastest-growing AIDS group. Meanwhile, a concerted campaign across the schools and campuses was doing its part to terrorize young people over the ravages of teenage AIDS. Again, actual figures tell a different story. The number of cases in New York City reported by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) for ages 13-19 from 1981 to the end of June 1992 was 872. When homosexuals, intravenous drug users, and hemophiliacs are eliminated, the number left not involving these risks (or not admitting to them) reduces to a grand total of 16 in an 11 year period. (Yes, sixteen. You did read that right.)
AIDS HERESY AND THE NEW BISHOPS [1] by James P. Hogan [2]
AIDS HERESEY AND THE NEW BISHOPS [3] HIV & AIDS—VirusMyth AIDS HomePage [4] HIV Denial [5] Links that rethink AIDS [6]
I'm having problems with this entry and no, it's not technical in nature. They're more of a “how do I write about this topic” problem. Especially since I'm a bit skeptical about AIDS to begin with, as the above quote and the sites I've linked to show.
My intent with this entry was to present a side of the argument that may not get presented; or at least one that I feel might not get presented by the Link and Think [7] Weblog campaign. And I can say with certainty that it has gotten a discussion going on [8] here at Condo Conner.
And that, I think, is the whole purpose of this.
Link and Think [9] [10]
[1] http://www.monadnock.net/fanspaces/hogan/heresy.html
[2] http://www.jamesphogan.com/
[3] http://www.monadnock.net/fanspaces/hogan/heresy.html
[4] http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/
[5] http://directory.excite.com/health/family_health/gay_and_lesbian_health/hiv_and_aids/hiv_denial
[6] http://www.whatisaids.com/aidslinks.htm
[7] http://www.linkandthink.org/
[8] http://connected.springdew.com/c358.htm
[9] /boston/2001/12/01/linknthinkbadge.gif
![[9] /boston/2001/12/01/linknthinkbadge.gif](/gemini.conman.org/boston/2001/12/01/linknthinkbadge.gif){kind=link}