Proving the AIDS/Vaccine Link, Part 3

TRKeske trkeske at aol.com
Sun Jan 24 02:06:29 EST 1999


PROVING AIDS/VACCINE LINK, Part 3
(Accident or Genocide?)

Proof of the link between the outbreak of AIDS in American gay males
and experimental hepatitis B vaccines given to gay males in the late
1970's was provided in Part 1 of this series.

Part 2 argued why the link was in fact a causal link.

Part 3 explores the question of whether the causal link is explained
by accident or deliberate intent.

When I refer to "proving" the link, I refer only to proving the statistical
correlation for the high incidence of vaccine trial participants in the 
earliest AIDS cases.  This much is beyond serious debate.

The question of causality, if not in the category of theoretical "proof",
is on extremely solid ground.  As we progress into the question of
accident versus genocide, it grows more problematic.  However, I think
that the case against our own government will prove in time to be as
compelling as our government's case against Saddam Hussein.  Hussein
has pursued biological weapons, and so has our government.  Hussein
has been irresponsible with his deadly weapons, and so has our government.
Hussein has shown extreme malice toward various minorities, and so
has our government.

The eventual question will be not so much what we can "prove", but
what actions we need to take in our defense.  The Hussein analogy
carries right to military actions against Iraq.  We don't have
absolute proof to justify this action, and we don't consider that
we need absolute proof.   The pattern of suspicious circumstances
and displays of dubious character are more than sufficient.

For now, back to the patient exploration of murky circumstances.

There are a couple very obvious reasons why the infection of gay men
via hepatitis vaccine could have been a tragic accident.

One is that the vaccines were plasma-based.  Some of the blood used to
make the vaccines was found later to be HIV-positive.

The other obvious reason is that the vaccine production involved the
use of monkey tissues.  HIV is believed to be derived from SIV, a
monkey virus that is genetically similar to HIV.  SIV is capable in
some monkey species of producing AIDS-like disease.

At first glance, it seems so obvious that it could have been an
accident, that there would seem little reason even to look further
at the question of genocide.   Unfortunately, things are rarely as
simple as they may appear at first glance.

It is very unlikely that AIDS in Manhattan was triggered by SIV
getting into the vaccine.  Researchers believe that it would take
centuries or at least decades for SIV to evolve into HIV.  The
infections in New York occurred almost immediately, sometimes
within months.

The only known human infections with SIV are in small numbers
of lab workers.  In these cases, no resulting disease has yet been
detected.  Similarly, no monkeys have ever been found to harbor
HIV, itself.

Perhaps, then, the blood used in making the vaccine is far more
suspicious than the monkey tisues.

There are MANY viruses that could potentially infect a vaccine,
because of the animal tissues and blood-based components.

Researchers and manufacturers of vaccines are of course aware 
of this.  They take measures to kill such potential viruses.  HIV
is supposedly a fragile virus.  Should their measures have eliminated
any HIV in the vaccines?

One problem with the theory that HIV slipped through the protective
measures is that the government vehemently denies that the vaccine is
now, or ever was, unsafe.  They claimed that HIV was no more
prevalent among the vaccine trial participants than the general 
population.  

This argument is invalidated in the long term, because virtually all
of the vaccine participants eventually contracted AIDS.  This 
could have been simply because the men were promiscuous and
at high risk.  However, it invalidates the argument all the same.
Given the long incubation period for HIV, any vaccine participants
who contracted AIDS within a decade after the trial could have
been infected by the vaccine as well through sex.  You cannot
presume, one way or the other.  You simply must discard
the line of reasoning, for lack of any clear result.

What you can tell for sure, however, it what became of the vaccine,
after the initial experiments.

The World Health Organization touts the safety of hepatitis B
vaccine, proudly proclaiming, "Over 1 billion doses of Hepatitis
B (HB) vaccine have been used since 1981 with an outstanding
record of safety and efficacy." [1]

It is delightful how you can sometimes hang propagandists with
their own words.

To clarify some things about the HB vaccine: There are two types
of hepatitis B vaccine that are available, today.  The plasma-derived
vaccine has been in use since 1981, and is still in use, today.  There
is a newer, recombinant DNA vaccine, first available in 1986, which
is used more commonly, today.

The plasma-derived vaccine is made from the blood of individuals
who are chronically infected with hepatitis-B, and which has 
been treated to destroy any live virus.  Several hundred million doses
of the plasma-based vaccine have been administered since 1982 
[2].

The WHO publishes the above information to try to reassure you
that the vaccine is very safe.  In truth, the above statements ought
to have the opposite effect, and severely unsettle you, if you 
think about them a little bit.

Several hundred million doses of the plasma-vaccine vaccine
have been administered, and there is no evidence that AIDS
was spread by them.  Yet, when several thousand gay men
were given the same vaccine, the statistical correlation to
AIDS is overwhelming.  What can this mean?

You might think that the answer is simply that we now screen
the plasma for HIV, which we could not do in 1981.  However,
there is still a problem with this.

The vaccine has been in use since 1981.  Yet, the HIV blood test
did not become available until 1985!   Was anyone else given this
same vaccine, in the window of vulnerability?

Indeed they were. In the early 1980's doctors and nurses were urged
to take the new hepatitis B vaccine.

Many health care workers refused to take it, because they realized
what the gay community so stupidly refuses to realize.  They saw
very clearly what happened to the gay men who took the same
vaccine.

In the words of one concerned health professional [2]:

  "This vaccine was avoided like the plague by health workers when
    it was first introduced... The reason for this was most clearly stated
    by my mother, Dr. Aileen Thorburn Griffin, who told me on the phone
    one afternoon back in 1985 that since 1981 she had never taken the
    vaccine, despite pressure from her hospital, because I know where the
    vaccine comes from.. how the vaccine is made."

Namely, from blood of junkies and alcoholics, from tissues of lab animals
with large numbers of unidentified viruses that can sometimes slip
through.

Only one of three employees of the U.S. Veteran's Administration took
the vaccine.  However, there were still some 1000 medical workers,
among others, taking the vaccine.  The result?  From the very same
vaccine, only gay men were infected as a result of it.

There was no chance, in this time period, to correct for the postulated
deficiencies in its manufacturing.  It is almost unthinkable that the
vaccine could be so selective, by random accident.  It there were
anything ** inherently ** wrong with how the vaccine were prepared,
it should have been evident, for such a large number of straight
recipients.

There is an even more obvious problem, here, boys and girls.  What
is wrong with the following picture?  Think real hard, now:

    SCIENTIST #1: We just tested our experimental  hepatitis B vaccine
                                on several thousand gay men.  How are they
                                 doing?

    SCIENTIST #2:  Many are dying of a strange ailment, unlike anything
                                that we've seen before.  Some of them 
                                started dying within months of being given 
                                the vaccine, even though they were
                                perfectly health at the start.

    SCIENTIST #1:  Good.  Fine.  Excellent.  Let's release the vaccine
                                for general use, and start giving it 
                                to thousands of people.

The plasma-based vaccine was released almost immediately after
the trial, and never withdrawn, despite the fact that very trial subjects
used to evaluate the safety of vaccine were dying!

This is not a mere lapse of judgement.  It would have been an act
of sheer madness.  This is obvious enough- why has no one made
an issue of it before, and why have you never noticed?

Because you, the public, are mostly quite insane, too.  You're so
conditioned to receiving your version of reality from official
sources, that you've lost the ability to see the obvious for
yourself, when it's not spelled out to you in blazing headlines.

Interestingly, the FDA Commissioner testified in 1996:

   "Unfortunately, too many of our critics justify their call for reform
     based on how the FDA did its job in the 1980's or earlier. ...

     It is important to remember, however, where the Agency was in
     the 1980s.  Congress found -- as did the Agency itself-- that the
     scientific and medical standards for the review of medical
     devices were lacking." [4]

You might almost think that this little confession is merely demonstrating
my point.  But, no- the FDA commission is defending against allegations
that the FDA was too SLOW and too conservative in releasing
drugs and treatments.  Isn't the irony and the madness of it all
quite delightful?

How the hell could anyone have approved the commercial use
of the vaccine, under the circumstances?

You might suppose that they were extremely stupid.  However, we
are talking about prestigious scientists who were involved in that
trial.  Sorry, they are not simply that stupid. 

Perhaps they were merely greedy, not stupid.  There is a lot of
money made on vaccines.  However, they would have to be utterly
bankrupt, morally, wouldn't they?  No regard for the risk of mass
death at all.

It would require a level of moral bankruptcy so profound, that
it is no less extreme to postulate a willingness for complicity
in genocide.

Even if they suspected that the gay men in the vaccine trial
were infected through sex, they could not know that for sure,
particularly when the vaccine was blood-based.  It was
well known that blood was dangerous, well before we had
an HIV blood test.

Did they merely think that the benefits of the vaccine outweighed
the risks of the blood used to make it?  Hardly- hepatitis fatality
is rare [5], with about a 0.3% fatality rate.  90-95% of all
hepatitis B vaccine cases recover completely after 3-4 weeks.

Obviously, you don't risk a lethal new disease, for the sake of
vaccinating against a non-lethal disease.

Even if the gay men were indeed infected through sex, it still invalidates
the results of the trial.  Whatever the reason that they are
getting sick and dying, you still cannot know anything about
the safety of the vaccine.  You have essentially run no test
at all, must discard the results, and start from scratch.

How could they disregard the results of the vaccine trial?

Take a tip from Tuskegee.   Perhaps they didn't care about 
the results of their hepatitis B vaccine trial because it was
never really hepatitis B vaccine that they were testing.
They had some smaller control groups to test the real, 
unadulterated vaccine.

Perhaps, most of the hapless, human guinea pigs were used
to test what happens when you inject HIV into humans.
Or, perhaps, it was simply an attempt to reduce the numbers
of a hated minority.

Perhaps they didn't care about the obvious results of the
trial, because they were exactly the EXPECTED results:
people getting sick and dying.

Where would they have gotten their hands on HIV before
anyone supposedly knew about its existence?  That is
obvious, too.  Pitifully, screamingly obvious, but I'll
wager that you couldn't figure it out if your life depended
on it.  And your life does depend on it.

I'll discuss this in upcoming essays, but first see if you can, just
this once, figure out the obvious, by yourself.

Tom Keske
Boston, Mass.


[1] No Scientific Justification to Suspend Hepatitis B Immunization
      http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-67.html

[2] World Health Organization, http"//www.who.int/gpv-dvacc/
      diseases/hepatitis_b.htm

[3] Pat Griffin Mackie, http"//www.i-wayco.com/niin/
      knowledgereport/hep_newborns.html

[4] Statement by David A. Kessler, M.D., FDA Commissioner
      before Subcommittee on Health, U.S. House of Representatives,
      May 1, 1996.

[5]  Hepatitis B Fatality Rare:  http://www.hepnet.com/update11.html





More information about the Microbio mailing list