PROVING THE AIDS/VACCINE LINK
You would think that it would not be too difficult to find a
smoking gun, when that gun has killed or wounded some
30 million people.
My friends sometimes tell me that the gay community will never
listen to claims that AIDS was unleashed through vaccine trials
in the late 1970's, even if it is true, because "nothing can be
proven, anyway".
One should not give up, so easily. After analyzing some data
concerning those vaccine trials, I believe that I can produce
statistical evidence as damning as an O.J. Simpson DNA
test, pointing unequivocally to a deliberate murder.
I am sure that the details can be quibbled, but I am equally
confident that the bottom line will be unchanged. It is no
longer a "theory" that AIDS was seeded through vaccine
trials- it is for all intents and purposes a fact, with as high
a level of certainty as most any other belief that you may
care to hold.
When you have an explosive, new epidemic, the first few
cases tend to tell you the most about the epidemic's origins.
Most of what follows tends to get lost in an exploding
confusion that attends the exploding epidemic.
I decided to focus my attention on the gay men who were among
the first to be diagnosed with AIDS, and how many of those
had participated in the hepatitis B vaccine trials that were
held in New York and San Francisco, starting in the late
1970's.
The prevalence of vaccine trial participants among the first
AIDS cases has sometimes been dismissed on the grounds
that promiscuous men were chosen for the vaccine trials,
and therefore, supposedly, it was nothing suspicious that
they should be the first to get AIDS.
Relative to a supposedly non-promiscuous straight population,
that might have been true. However, the relevant comparison
is not against the straight population. The promiscuous
vaccine trial participants, and their rate of AIDS, needs to
be compared against that of other promiscuous gay males,
in the same cities, during the same time period.
The CDC issued a report pretending to show that vaccine
participants did not have a higher AIDS rate than the
general population. Before I refute that claim, a bit of
context is needed on the general subject of
"damned lies and statistics".
This trite saying about statistics has probably done more
harm to the cause of Truth than bad statistics could ever
do. Statistics are like guns: Statistics do not lie.
People lie with statistics.
However, the commission of this crime requires a
willing victim. Rather than becoming an empty-headed
cynic about all statistical analysis, your personal goal
should be to become sophisticated enough in your
understanding of statistics, that you can determine
for yourself whether they are being used for the
purpose of Truth or Lies.
If a person came up to you and made a bet that he
could toss a coin and get 4 heads in a row, and
then did so, is he likely to have cheated you?
How about 10 heads in a row? 20 heads?
Four heads in a row, the odds are 1 in 16-
you'd let it pass and pay up. Ten heads,
the odds go up to 1 in 1000. Twenty heads,
1 in 1,000,000.
If the man were accused of a scam, and you
were the jury, would you convict, if the
man repeatedly made bets and threw 20
heads in a row? Would you need to know exactly
how he cheated, or would the statistical evidence
alone at some point become sufficient?
At 20 heads in a row, it always COULD be luck,
but you would be a fool to conclude anything other
than you had been cheated. Are the statistics lying
to you? Emphatically, they are not.
The same applies to genocide. You need not care
who laced the vaccines with HIV, why they did it,
how they did it. For now, you need merely to
convince yourself of the fact that it DID happen
that way.
The CDC's statistical analysis is questionable in
part simply on the grounds that the CDC,
having a connection to the trials, has a natural
bias, even to the point of potentially lying, outright.
Feeding this suspicion is the fact that our government
has hidden most the vaccine trial data, on grounds
of "national security", much to the outrage of
AIDS investigators, and much to the ignorance
of most of the general public.
Supposed you had 100 vaccine participants in
a city of 1,00,000, and an epidemic occurred
shortly thereafter. The government that sponsored
the vaccine test assured that the rate of death
among the vaccine participants was no higher
than that of the city in general. Can you believe
them?
Not necessarily. Suppose, for example, that they
forgot to tell you that everyone in the city died.
The death rate of the vaccine participants
would have been 100%, and the death rate
for the city would have been 100%. Of course,
they were the same.
Suppose also that they didn't tell you how the
vaccine participants all got the new disease among
the very first, then members of their families got it next,
then friends of family members got it next,
etc. Taking a statistical study a few years
into the epidemic would not reveal the true
story, would it?
Propagandists trying to cover-up the man-made
origins of AIDS frequently love to dismiss contrary
evidence by saying that "Correlation is not causation".
This is most certainly true, and it is most certainly
not a refutation.
As a tongue-in-cheek example: if you took a government
propagandist who was attempting to cover-up a major
scandal, and shot him right between the eyes, the act
of your shooting him between the eyes would be
correlated with his keeling over dead. In this case:
Yes, Virginia, correlation really IS causation.
Another classic example is a correlation between
ice cream sales and pregnancy- the higher the ice
cream sales, the higher the rate of pregnancies.
A fallacious conclusion would be that ice cream
CAUSES pregnancy.
Correlation is not NECESSARILY causation, but correlation
does require EXPLANATION. In the case of ice cream,
the explanation is that higher ice cream sales are tied to
higher temperatures, which is when people also tend to
have more sex.
With gay men, AIDS, and the vaccine trials, the alternate
explanation to "refute" a causal link is that the vaccine
participants were chosen to be promiscuous.
The problem with this is that urban gays in the late
1970's were very commonly promiscuous. Why should
the promiscuous, gay, vaccine participants be more likely
to get AIDS, compared to any other promiscuous gay
males?
After all, anti-gay forces tell us all the time that gays
have such extensive AIDS because gays are all supposed
to be promiscuous. When I finish this statistical analysis,
the anti-gay, pro-coverup propagandists might have to
do an about-face, and start to argue that we are NOT
promiscuous. If they do so, it would all the more reveal
their insincerity.
I am not addressing in this essay, the question of
whether AIDS was engineered or natural. For now,
it is enough to demonstrate statistically that the
virus had to be present in the vaccines.
If the virus occurred in nature, fine. If its monkey
predecessor SIV existed for decades or centuries
before HIV, perhaps all someone needed to do was
to discover it, and coax it to adapt to human tissue.
Or, if the virus adapted itself to human tissue by
natural means, then all someone needed to do was
to discover a new virus in remote African villages,
and use it for genocide. The realization that the
virus was already "on the loose", and already likely
to spread inevitably in time, could tempt a genocidal
madman all the more. Little was left to lose in
targeting a population of undesirables to be hit
first, and hit hardest.
With HIV, I was intrigued at statement of Dr. Paul
O'Malley, the health investigator who headed up
the Merck/CDC hepatitis B study. Dr O'Malley
reported that of the first 24 AIDS cases in San Francisco,
11 were from the vaccine trial [1].
This seemed suspicious on an intuitive level. What other
AIDS investigators have heretofore failed to do is to
attempt to compute statistical odds for or against this being a
natural occurrence.
Similarly, in New York, of the first 41 AIDS cases, some
25-50% were reported to be participants of the vaccine
trials [2]. For my purposes, I'll take a middle figure of
37.5%, or 15 men.
In San Francisco, some 6700 men participated in the
hepatitis vaccine tests. In New York, it had been some
1000.
The only remaining information needed to make a
ballpark estimate of the statistical odds are figures
for the numbers of promiscuous gay men that existed
in these cities, in the late 1970s.
It is difficult to get accurate information, since there is
no formal gay census. However, you can make some
reasonable, conservative estimates.
The population of the city of San Franciso is about
700,000, and the metropolitan area is about 1.7
million. Most gays would estimate 10% of the population
as being gay, while I tend to use a more conservative 5%
figure. New York and San Francisco should have higher
percentages than the national average, but to be conservative,
you can stick to the overall average.
Another yardstick that I used was the Pride Parade
attendance, about 200,000 in San Francisco.
Estimates about venereal disease, and surveys about
unsafe sex practices can give an estimate of what percent
of the gay population might be termed "promiscuous".
These measures are not precise, but they are reasonable.
