Those who can make you believe absurdities, will make you commit atrocitie —Voltaire

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Endgame A Film by Alex Jones


One World Order
Who are the Bilderberg Group, Rothschild and Rockefeller? Their connections to the Nazis, Chinese Communists and dictators of all sorts and political persuasions. It looks at their warmongering, financial market control, the shrewed and very stealthy operations they have been behind since the time of Napoleon, and all to gain power and control of the world. Alex explains brilliantly how this is not really about money; as they all have always had loads of that, but about power and control.

The film also looks at who the current members are, from Prince Philip of England and Queen Beatrix of Holland as well as Queen Sofia of Spain, Thatcher, Blair, gore and the Clintons, the owner of FIAT, as well as many figures in the corporate mass media among many others, always showing the extreme secrecy surrounding all their meetings and activities.

The film includes an outstanding section covering Eugenics, its history and founding members, and how licit and illicit drugs are pushed to achieve specific goals in the Eugenics program, and the role of big pharma and the media in selling the Eugenics agenda dressed as something completely different . It looks at how disease and fear of disease are used to psychologically terrorize people into taking drugs, or even daily cocktails of drugs such as is the case with so many American kids already, and how the mass media lies, scientists and the medical establishment all work together to create a scenario of viric pandemonium, where people through the bombardment of the media propaganda machine are brainwashed into actually volunteering themselves to take part in this chemical slavery program to be used as guinea pigs. It shows how the helpless such as the case of orphaned children of the poorest in Africa and China are forced to comply with "health programs" that are literally designed to kill as many of them off as possible. It lights a scenario where science becomes technology, and how this new techno-science is devoid of any humanity. Such is the agenda of the (Brave) New World Order.

The film also looks at how environmentalism and global warming are used keys to population control, as well as false ploys to block third world development. It explains very well how terms the environmentalist use to imply they are "saving the planet", sell well to people who take on the creed as if it were a "new religion", and they collaborate with it oblivious of its hidden agenda which is ultimately: population culling, taking us back to a sort of feudal existence under their total power and control.

Suddenly Alex and the film go all strange when dealing with AIDS. He fails to tackle HIV & AIDS head on, but for some strange reason he decides to sit on the fence, when AIDS is the supreme example of everything he is trying to explain using less evident a more obscure and scattered examples, which would be dwarfed by AIDS if he had actually shone his bright torch there. Why does he turn away from doing that?

This decision dents the general credibility of the film as well as his own, in that I feel it is totally unbelievable that he does not actually see the connection between HIV & AIDS; and all that is done it its name, and Eugenics. I do not believe he cannot see how AIDS provides the basic infrastructure for that total "global control" over health matters for the New World Order like nothing else. AIDS is the most brilliant and evil of their inventions; which admittedly grew out of an initial scare and a lot of confusion, but that very quickly was seized on by the powers that be, some scientists, some in politics and quickly turned into what it is today, and has stood for a quarter of a century.

You only have to look and see who are the tzar's in the AIDS game, who is trying to push the AZT on Africa, how non-specific an AIDS test still is, what is AZT and it's side effects. how the "life-saving cocktail" medication known as HAART is the number one cause of death in AIDS related deaths in the west by causing liver failure, the corruption of the science behind AIDS, the corruption of the politics behind AIDS, the WHO and it's exaggerations of figures in Africa and India, the attempted demolition of the reputation of Thabo Umbeki by the mass media for standing up to the AIDS industry and refusing to give his people AZT etc etc etc... and it should be more than obvious to him that the ones running the AIDS machine and it's propaganda are the same persons he is exposing in this documentary.

Surely he does not believe that as far as their AIDS involvement goes, they are saintly? That is just weird. I don't understand his backing off here at all, considering he claims to be a man who stands behind the truth without fear or word mincing. Above all as it is simply not credible that he does not know or see these facts, which are as clear as can be for the sharp trained eye and mind such as he certainly has.

This was a missed opportunity to expose and connect one of the greatest pieces of evil perpetrated against man to the global Eugenics plan he talks of, but he clearly backs off from doing so. If he looks at AIDS he should also see the basic modus operandi for how the elite operate is all there. It's possibly their greatest and most complete accomplishment to date, and forms the basis for current and future deceptions from avian flu to global warming itself. AIDS is the precursor, and they have gotten away with it for a quarter of a century.

The question for me still remains: why is he just not able to see how HIV & AIDS tie into all of this evil he is exposing?

I just don't get it...I just don't buy it.



Friday, October 26, 2007

LIam Scheff Point By Point

All the material for this piece was received via email from Liam Scheff and is posted with his permission.
________

Letter to the Guardian in response to the "serious concerns" caused by The Guinea Pig Kids Documentary.
by Liam Scheff

______


Answering the Beeb & AIDS Truth Mafia On The Ginea Pig Kids



By Liam Scheff
[IN BLUE & BRACKETS]


The BBC in the Guardian
The British Broadcasting Corporation has investigated and affirmed complaints that "Guinea Pig Kids," an independent video aired on the BBC in 2004, made false and misleading claims about paediatric clinical trials of AIDS medicines that included foster children with HIV/AIDS living at New York City's Incarnation Children's Center (ICC). The drugs, which were already approved for adults and in some cases for HIV- children, were being tested to determine the safest and most effective dosages for children living with HIV/AIDS. Some ICC patients and were among those enrolled in the trials, with the written consent of their parents or guardians, as the only way to get life-saving medications. The acknowledgement of the video's bias-driven misrepresentation is the latest in a spate of recent editorial scandals at the BBC.

[bias-driven! God forbid there should be an editorial position in news - like drugging ORPHANS with 7 BLACK BOX labeled drugs at a time might be ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE]

"Guinea Pig Kids," the BBC affirmed, wrongly implied that the HIV-related medications that were being studied were futile and dangerous, and it intentionally ignored their life-saving efficacy.

[Yes, NOT DANGEROUS AT ALL!!!!! THAT'S WHY THE FDA STICKS THE OL' BLACK BOX LABEL ON THEM!!! FOR FUN!!!]

Article on the effects of Nivirapine

The BBC acknowledged that the video was biased towards the views of "HIV denialists," who don't accept the scientific evidence that HIV exists and that it causes AIDS.

[UH OH! THEY DON'T ACCEPT THE """SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE""" BAD BAD PEOPLE! DO THEY ACCEPT THE "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" THAT AZT AND NEVIRAPINE SAY, ON THEIR LABELS, THAT THEY KILL PEOPLE?]

Fraser Steel, the Head of Editorial Complaints, concluded that these are serious breaches of the standards set out in the BBC's Editorial Guidelines concerning accuracy and impartiality, and he extended and apology for the deficiencies in the program and the associated website material. The affirmation of the complaint is very important because the credibility of the BBC had lent undeserved legitimacy to false accusations against ICC and to disinformation about HIV/AIDS, clinical trials and antiretroviral treatments that is spread by HIV denialists.

[UH OH! ""DISINFORMATION!!"" What is it, exactly? OH, IT'S INFORMATION FROM THE HIV TEST AND DRUG MANUFACTURERS, THAT MAKES AIDS LOOK LIKE SOME KIND OF HOLOCAUST MACHINE. Gosh, wouldn't want that getting around].

The BBC's retraction and apology followed months of intensive investigation in response to repeated complaints filed by AIDS scientists, doctors and activists,

[AIDSTRUTH.ORG , JEANNE BERGMAN, JOHN P. MOORE, LOOK 'EM UP, SEE THEIR LOVELY WORDS AND OPEN HEARTS]

Who denounced the video's attack on Incarnation Children's Center as a hoax designed to spread disinformation about HIV/AIDS.

[A HOAX? I thought we were just told that "ORPHANS" WERE BEING USED IN "CLINICAL TRIALS" TO TEST THE "SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF AIDS DRUGS? I think the NIH database says the same thing by the bucketful? Is the NIH and US government perpetrating a "hoax" on the Aids industry??? Better get them to take down their clinicaltrials.gov site, fast!!!!]

The film and the associated web pages alleged that healthy African-American and Latino children at ICC, a specialized care facility for children with HIV/AIDS in New York City, were harmed and even killed by bizarre and unjustified medical experiments involving lethal drugs, and that if their parents or guardians objected to the experiments they lost custody of their children. These allegations, the complaint argues and the BBC agreed, are untrue and
unjustified, and were motivated by HIV denialism.

[Uh, well, that's what the PEOPLE WE INTERVIEWED WHO HAD CHILDREN AT ICC TOLD US, PLUS CHILDCARE WORKERS AND NURSES WHO WORKED THERE, WHO'VE BEEN INTERVIEWED ON RADIO, THE AIDSCARE PAGE DETAILING THE DEATH OF A CHILD ON AIDS DRUGS (see my links at the top. PLUS THE FACT THAT ICC WAS USING THALIDOMIDE ON CHILDREN, PLUS THE DOCTOR FROM THE PLACE TELLING ME HOW THEY USE SURGICAL TUBES TO ENFORCE THE DRUGS. (And you can find that in the journal of Pediatrics too, or wherever Aids drugs are sold to children)]

Link to pdf & article on gastric tube insertion for AIDS drugs in children

The BBC has not yet publicly posted the retraction and apology, which were presented in a 12-page letter, dated 31 July 2007, from Fraser Steele to Jeanne Bergman, Ph.D., the lead complainant and an AIDS activist with AIDStruth.org and the Center for HIV Law and Policy in New York City. "The BBC has been very slow to respond to our urgent concerns," she said. "We have pressed our charges that the video is HIV-denialist propaganda with no basis in science or fact

[REALLY? LET'S COMPARE NOTES. WHERE DO YOU WANT TO DEBATE IT? WHAT'S THAT, YOU WON'T DEBATE? YOU WON'T DEBATE "DENIALISTS??" (says Jeanne Bergman, and John P. Moore, of the complaint. How convenient for them, huh?]

since the video was aired in 2004, and it took until this year for the BBC to investigate the piece. It has now been two-and-a-half months since we received Fraser Steel's letter apologizing for the video's misrepresentations and bias, but the BBC has still not issued a public retraction and apology, nor stated what actions it intends to take. I am horrified that the BBC would air a lurid independent video about HIV clinical research and treatment without a proper scientific review in the first place, and I am angry about the BBC's inexplicable delay in
retracting publicly the very dangerous lies to which it has lent its fading legitimacy." Dr. Bergman has been informed that the BBC's actions are subject to the outcome of on-going "discussions at the highest editorial level" given the "very serious issues raised by this matter," but, she said, "They need to act now. The BBC webpage promoting the video is still up,
promulgating HIV denialist lies. There is as yet no effort by the BBC to correct the systematic disinformation about HIV and its treatments that it aired, and that has damaged the public's understanding of HIV and impeded HIV-infected children's access to lifesaving care."

No children have died as a result of the clinical trials.

[SEVERAL CHILDREN DIED AT ICC WHILE I WAS WRITING ABOUT IT, FROM 04 TO 06 - ONE AFTER BEING DOSED WITH EVERYTHING, INCLUDING THALIDOMIDE. SO I WAS TOLD BY WOMEN WHO WORKED THERE, BY CHILDREN WHO WENT THERE, BY THE MOTHER OF CHILDREN WHO WENT THERE.

JUST SCRUB IT FROM HISTORY, THOUGH].

Enrolment in the trials was conditional on the likely benefits to the child and a low probability of harm.

[IT WAS? THERE ARE STUDIES WITH 3 AND 4 AND 7 DRUGS IN 6 MONTH AND 4 YEAR OLDS. YOU WOULDN'T GIVE A CHILD (OR AN ADULT) 7 OVER THE COUNTER DRUGS AT ONCE. THESE ARE 7 BLACK BOX LABLED DRUGS. OF COURSE THERE IS NO PROTECTION FROM HARM IN THESE STUDIES.. YOU JUST ASSUME THE KID'S GOING TO DIE OF AIDS ANYWAY, AND YOU WRITE IT OFF AS SUCH].

Written consent was obtained from parents and guardians, who were not paid or otherwise improperly influenced to enroll their children.

[REALLY? THAT'S THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE WERE TOLD BY PARENTS AND GUARDIANS! IMAGINE THAT!]

The National Institutes of Health, Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital, the New York City child welfare agency (the Administration of Children's Services, or A.C.S.), and other institutions provided multiple layers of oversight. And while two non-parental guardians interviewed in the video did have foster children with AIDS removed from their custody on the grounds of medical neglect, those children were not involved in the clinical trials.

(These foster parents lost custody because they had refused to provide the children with the approved standard-of-care treatments for HIV/AIDS that they had been prescribed, and without which the children would have become ill and died.)

[YES, THAT'S RIGHT, YOU TOOK CHILDREN AWAY FROM PARENTS WHO DID NOT DRUG THEM, BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE ILL ON THE DRUGS, WHICH, AGAIN, ARE THOSE LOVELY FDA-BLACK-BOX LABEL SORTS. WHY NOT TRY SOME YOURSELF, AND SEE HOW THAT GOES?]

The BBC affirmed that there was no evidence that children were taken from their families because they resisted "experimentation." The filmmakers falsely tried to "create an association between [the clinical] trials and a loss of parental rights," the BBC found.

[I DON'T KNOW IF THE FILMMAKER TRIED TO CREATE A FALSE SENSE - WE WERE DEALING WITH PARENTS WHO WERE LOSING THEIR CHILDREN TO A PLACE THAT WAS CONDUCTING DRUG TRIALS WITH ORPHANS; THEY LOST THEM, JUST AS JEANNE BERGMAN DESCRIBES, FOR NOT DRUGGING THEM ENOUGH. SEEMS WE AGREE.]

The film was written by, produced by, and featured interviews with HIV denialists, but it never identified them as people whose beliefs contradict everything that scientists, doctors, and the communities most affected by AIDS have learned about HIV and its treatment over the last 25 years.

[NOT EVERYTHING - ACTUALLY, THE PEOPLE INTERVIEWED AGREE WITH MOST OF THE CRITICAL LITERATURE ON THE AIDS PARADIGM. THE DRUGS ARE EXTREMELY TOXIC, THE DIAGNOSIS IS EXTREMELY FRAGILE, SPECIOUS AND FLAWED, AND SUBJECT TO WIDE AND VARYING INTERPRETATION. THAT'S SCIENCE, THAT FLUX, THAT DISCERNMENT, THAT INVESTIGATION. WHAT'S GOING ON HERE IN THIS BBC APOLOGY IS RELIGION.]

[AND BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, IT'S ALL IN THE BLACK PEOPLE'S HEADS, DON'T BELIEVE THE 'BAD SCIENCE' OF THE 'DENIALISTS', DON'T READ ANYTHING BUT OUR WORDS, DON'T THINK, DON'T DO ANYTHING BUT SUPPORT THE CONDOMIZING OF AFRICANS AND THE DRUGGING OF BLACK CHILDREN IN AMERICA. WE'RE THE AUTHORITY, WE ALLOW NOTHING BUT OUR WORDS TO BREACH THE PUBLIC IMAGINATION. SO SAY WE... ETC, ETC].

HIV
denialists have distributed copies of the video widely since it was aired and posted an edited version on the Internet. Jeanne Bergman explained, "The HIV denialists who made this film invented these charges against ICC. They cynically exploited African-Americans' real and historically-based fears of abuse by medical research and child welfare agencies. Their false
allegations about sinister medical experiments on foster children were a Trojan Horse created spread lies and deadly disinformation about HIV in the communities most devastated by AIDS. These allegations about ICC have become an 'urban legend,' untrue but widely believed, mainly because people trusted the BBC. The fact is that ICC used the clinical trials framework to make life-saving medications, already approved for adults, available to children with HIV who would otherwise have died."

HIV denialism is a collection of contradictory and scientifically unsound beliefs-that HIV does not exist, that HIV it exists but is not the cause of AIDS, and that AIDS does not exist. Pediatrician Nicholas Bennett was critical of the BBC's decision to air a video that was based on beliefs that are without scientific merit. "If someone had simply researched the individuals involved in promoting the story, and those interviewed during the program, it would have been quickly apparent that their views were not only those of a fringe element but also demonstrably wrong," he said. "'Balance' in the media does not mean giving equal air time to poorly-researched and biased material with the goal of gaining viewers with a sensational story. The saddest thing is that this story was sensational only due to the errors and bias inherent in it. The fact that it was produced by the BBC gave it an air of respectability that was wholly undeserved. Clearly the BBC needs to review its fact-checking practices. "John Moore, an internationally renowned HIV researcher at Cornell-Weill Medical College, added, "An important lesson for the BBC is the need to have its highly professional science and health reporters review documentaries like this one before they are released for public viewing. No scientifically literate journalist would ever have endorsed this one's contents and slant."

The BBC's retraction of the video was also applauded in South Africa, where the Health Minister's AIDS denialist views have seriously hampered HIV prevention and access to HIV treatment. Nathan Gefffen of the Treatment Action Campaign there said that "The BBC ruling, albeit late, is welcome. The lies peddled by pseudo-scientists like [film-maker] Jamie Doran and David Rasnick [a denialist who was featured in the film] have caused confusion and death. They try to appeal to minorities and vulnerable groups by misusing human rights language to portray themselves as progressive. But behind most AIDS denialists lies either a desire to sell untested snake-oils to sick people or an incapacity to consider evidence rationally."

For further information, contact:
Jeanne Bergman
AIDStruth.org and the Center for HIV Law and Policy
Tel: +1 917 714 5501
Email: jbergman@hivlawandpolicy.org
Website: www.aidstruth.org

[END OF BBC APOLOGY]

THANKS JEANNE! YOU'RE A HERO FOR FUTURE BATTLERS OF LIBERTY, PERSONAL CHOICE, MEDICAL ETHICS, SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE!

____

Interview Transcript

Radio Interview with ICC childcare worker:
http://liamscheff.com/content/view/77/31/

_____

Notes On A Scandal

The Guinea Pig Kids was released at the near end of 2004, in November. I provided what is called, original research, which really consisted of pointing to the National Institute of Health's (that's the US government's) own database of clinical trials, and noting that the drugs they were using were Black Box labled, meaning they'd caused severe disability, or death, in patients taking them.

And that these were being used in combination of 2, 3, 4, up to 7 at a time, "at higher than usual doses", in children as young as 4 years old. That's orphans, as young as four, and then, other drugs and vaccines, in infants as young as six months old. [Here]

The orphans at ICC were crack babies - boarder babies, left, abandoned at the NYC hospitals by addict mothers.

You can see the list of US government/pharmaceutical company-approved clinical trials here (in the second part), and ICC's own words about who they are and how they got money for trials initially, Here.

The director, Milena Schwager, worked with input from the producer - the person they're crediting with the film, the money guy - Jamie Doran, who took meetings, long meetings with the BBC, who told him what they needed to 'sell' this kind of thing. But they managed to produce a pretty good piece.

I've put some notes on the actual piece, with anything I differed with in the telling, Here.

I only worked on the first half of the film, providing the links to the clinical trials, and then to many of the contacts to be interviewed - the mothers who were having children taken, and the children themselves. We interviewed more than were shown in the film, and I don't know how or why it was cut as it was, (they left out important stuff), except that it was only a half hour, and I suppose those are the devils of TV broadcasting.

I provided the research that pointed to the problems in the use of orphans in drug trials, and in these trials, specifically. Most of that work is summarized, or listed in the document "The ICC Investigation Continues." [Here]

I worked closely with the director Milena Schwager, for many months. We worked very, very hard on digging up a great deal of evidence; most of it was just horrifying, the drug effects, the details of studies, the catholic cemetery where they bury the children, multiple bodies to a casket.

* Here. Search "guardian angel plot"

Celia Farber came in and worked on the second half of the film, which got it into its production status, so she can tell you about that. She worked on getting some of the death certificates for the children, and lining up and taking other interviews.

She wrote about a great deal of that (and more) Here.

Doran, the producer, didn't want to entertain the idea that there was something deeply wrong with the Aids paradigm, as such; He really wasn't interested in that information, but he seemed to care about the orphans and children being used in these trials, and seemed to feel that it was a considerable breach of ethics.

The situation was as it is; ICC is an orphanage where children of the poor and drug-addicted are remanded. And these children were and are being force-fed drugs, as part of regular "Aids drug" regimens (and taken away from parents and guardians, when they have them, who don't want to enforce the drug regimens). The children were also used in a few dozen clinical trials.

The drugs were and are very poisonous drugs, to say the least. That's no secret. Their status in the literature was and is well-established - their FDA Black Box labels tell the superface of their story.

That is, Doran, the producer, who held constant meetings with the BBC during production, was not a 'denialist', (to use the Aids cabal's language for those who do not obey their ideological dictates). Nor was he in that intellectual place of questioning the medical paradigm to its roots. He did take a stand for these women and children who were being abused, and I appreciate that he did. That makes it an ethical movie, not a "denialist" movie.

Of course, there is no such thing as an "Aids Denialist." This is a term invented by people like Jeanne Bergman and John P. Moore to hide and shield the miserable failings of the Aids paradigm from public criticism.

(Criticize us and we'll liken you to a Holocaust Denialist! And we'll tell everybody else that's what you are!!)

So much for "science."

These children were and are drugged without consent or restraint, and they told us, in no uncertain terms, that they wanted to be free of the New York poverty policing system. To be free of the Administration for Children's Services, which polices children and parents who aren't drugging them according to the Aids doctor's orders.

That is, any Poor child's parents. Poor, only. They don't do this on Park Avenue.

In New York, the ACS acted/acts as the goon squad, the enforcers for the hospitals and the drug regimens. The hospitals themselves, or 'Aids departments' specifically, are the engines of the Aids machine the poor neighbourhoods of New York. They demand and force the taking of these drugs - AZT, Nevirapine, Kaletra, etc, despite all objections, morbid sickness, and all the rest.

So, a few notes on the 'scandal.'

I'm not in contact with Doran, but I hope he has the good sense to refer the BBC magistrates to the US clinical trials database, and ask them why drugs that cause deformity, are being used on orphans in an orphanage, for the purpose of studying the deformity that they're absolutely known and going to cause: [ Here]

Or that seven drugs, all FDA black-box labled, are being stuffed into children at one time, some "at higher than usual doses." [ Here]

Liam Scheff.

Your comments can also be made direct to Liam on his site.


Thursday, October 25, 2007

The Guinea Pig Kids The BBC & The AIDSTruth Mafia


Anything that actually needs the word TRUTH to validate its veracity, in today’s world is a sure sign that it is either really exposing the truth behind a big lie or that it hinges on a lie and need the word Truth to try and hide the lie. The latter is clearly the case when we look at AIDSTruth.com. So, let's just take a look at who is this self appointed bunch at AIDS Truth?
A dozen people who include a graduate student (Ken Witwer), a professor of economics (Nicoli Nattrass), several “HIV/AIDS activists” with no technical credentials (Martin Delaney, Nathan Geffen, Gregg Gonsalves, Richard Jefferys), and a PhD in a non-scientific discipline (Jeanne Bergman) Yet these people say Mullis and Duesberg aren’t qualified to talk about HIV/AIDS because they’ve never done research on it!

Henry H. Bauer
So they mostly seem to be a typical bunch of HIV activists who have made AIDS genocide marketing their business. Right now at AIDSTruth they are happy, as they have just claimed a big victory. Why? Because the BBC (Big Brother Corporation) has come to their aid in claiming that the three year old horrific BBC documentary “The Guinea Pig Kids” researched by Liam Scheff, is allegedly full of inconsistencies and lies. They say this after standing by their work for some years now. How very odd!

More here on this latest piece: 1 - 2 - 3

This documentary exposes the practice of using orphans in NY City as guinea pigs for AIDS drugs try-outs by pharmaceuticals. The BBC this week published a letter in the Guardian where it now says the documentary is allegedly riddled with inconsistencies. This was forced out of them after the AIDSTruth fascists demanded an apology from the BBC for airing this “denialist” piece; a very odd title to classify it under considering that in no part of the documentary is HIV and it’s relation to AIDS is not even discussed, but I will not go into that here as you can read what Dan has to say on his blog.

So the BBC had to published an apology to appease a bunch of unqualified and self appointed creeps who use Nazis tactics to forward their agenda. But why would the BBC give in after so many years sticking by its story? I find this very strange that the BBC should actually take this step the same week they loose billions of pounds in government funding, and are in such financial dire straits that they are even forced to sell off Television House as well as lay off thousands of workers.

Isn’t this a strange coincidence? Maybe now they can’t afford anymore to not get the big pharma financial kickbacks and advertising money for helping to keeping the AIDS lie alive by bashing the truth about children being used as guinea pigs. So out the window goes integrity and truth as the BBC pulls her g-string down yet again for the all powerful AIDS mafia.

Though if the truth be told, the Big Brother Corporation has just about as much credibility on any news these days as AIDSTruth.com have on AIDS, so though disappointing it is not really a surprise. The Moore’s, Bergmann’s and the Delaney’s fool no one. This is no victory except for the evil fascism they represent, it’s also exposes one more thing: that this is all about money and politics, not science and people. It only confirms that they are all crooks and criminals who use Nazi tactics to block any kind of investigation and debate, and the BBC is now their official whore.

These are the professional “jammers”, the tactical wing of the AIDS mafia and it’s sick agenda. They use those tactics. What is "jamming"? It is a term proposed by Kirk Madsen in his book After The Ball. Read a little about it and you will see that the AIDS cabal use the specific techniques explained in this book but for a different, though very closely related cause. It is an underhanded move where they attack anyone with who disagrees with them, such as calling their critics "denilaists" or "homophobic" therefore equating anyone who disagrees with them "holocaust deniers" or "evilness" and so shaming those who question. They need to desperately keep the idea alive that we are all “victims” and that they are our “protectors”. They need to do this to keep their funding, or their agenda would collapse, and they would all be exposed and formally charged with genocide and profiteering.

So JP Moore the Grand Inquisitor of the AIDS dogma wrote a nauseating gloating panegyric claiming a huge victory, as has his semi-retarded sick-in-the-head mongoloid-looking-nun of the unholy-order of the evil church of AIDSTruth, Tara(da) Smith on her swampy blog, from where I have the real honour of being banned.

So "victory" for whom? Not for humanity surely. It may seem like a small victory for their agenda, AIDSTruth and their pockets, but not for the babies the AIDS industry is killing with their approval and support to try out their new toxic wonder drugs. How shameful is this,to claim a victory for their fascist propaganda and the muzzling of the story of genuine harm to children.


Finally I thank you for giving us who denounce you, and your criminal activities the perfect ammunition to further expose you (as you further expose yourselves), and the scam you are perpetrating on all humanity for what you really are: a mafia. Even a retard should now be able to see that this is solely to do with money and politics and nothing more.

Till that time there is no victory for you. Every time the AIDSTruth mafia pull off one of their dirty PR and marketing ploys, and make it so obvious that it’s all to do with shady political maneuvering, every time you do that, it is a victory for us.

Friday, October 19, 2007

The AIDS Merry-Go-Round

The KS Déjà vu
Kaposi's Sarcoma appears again in a cluster of 15 gay men in San Francisco. All these men are over 40 years old and are on retroviral (HAART) treatment. All have high CD counts and undetectable viral load counts.

Now they think that something else causes KS in gay men, and not HIV after all.
WHAT? Well I never...what could it be?

Hello!!
Does anyone remember POPPERS; the sex drug that is still widely used and is still sold everywhere on the queer scene as DVD head cleaner and is taken by many regularly as a top-up drug during sex to kick in and enhance all the other long list of drugs we use as part of our obligatory urban queer lifestyle?

Is this for real? I don't criticize people for taking them, I just don’t understand why everyone need to lie and deny it.

Here is one opinion about this subject worth reading even though there is no mention of poppers. NotAIDS.com.

The Wasting
AIDS is no longer a wasting disease either as most people with AIDS in America are obese. Yes you read right OBESE. This radically changes the image of the person with AIDS everyone remembers from back in the 80’s and 90’s. According to this Article, 63% of the people with AIDS used in the study are Obese.

One thing that has not changed with the time has been the gay obsession/possession with the HIV doctrine, it’s adoption as an image pushed by the queer agenda and it's crass media. Here are a multitude of threads to see for yourself, how the specific targeting, subtle terrorizing and indoctrination of gay men, not to let go of the HIV lie is almost done daily.

Extra HIV Denialism
The Big Gay News HIV Genetics
The Stranger AIDS Education
The Stranger HIV Drugs

All this when we still have no test to actually detect anything specific to HIV with either. But hey, the industry still keeps saying the same thing: give us more money and maybe one day we will figure it all out.

The Circular Reasoning Scandal Of HIV Testing

By Neville Hodgkinson

Neville Hodgkinson is a UK-based journalist who has been writing about Aids for 20 years. He is the author of AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science (Fourth Estate, 1996).

The Business

IT WAS an icon of compassion, a sign you cared. To wear the red ribbon meant to express solidarity with HIV/Aids victims everywhere. It signified you knew the importance of antiviral drugs and HIV testing, Aids awareness and condoms – and of the urgent need for a vaccine.

In contrast, if you cast doubt on the ever-burgeoning and massaged HIV/Aids statistics; or suggested the billions raised for HIV research and treatment might be better spent on established medicines and in fighting poverty; or – perish the thought – if you questioned the theory that Aids is caused by a sexually transmitted virus, you lost your right to be considered a sensible and decent member of the human race. You were a “denialist”, a “pariah”, a “flat-earther”, a “crackpot”. Even if you were a leading scientist, your funds would disappear and your ability to publish in mainstream journals reduced to zero.

Today, whether it is frightening the residents of a Cornish town with a cluster of purported infections, or causing the former head of South Africa’s National Aids Council to apologise for having unprotected sex with an HIV-positive Aids activist, or enabling U2 front-man Bono to edit an issue of the Independent newspaper dominated by impassioned accounts of Africa’s HIV/Aids plight, the virus that has held such sway in the popular mind for more than 20 years is still never long out of the news. It is now very big business: American Express, Motorola, Gap, Converse and Armani are among the corporate giants supporting Bono’s RED campaign promoting special products to raise funds for Aids in Africa.

But unreported in Bono’s Independent (or in any other edition of the paper, which for years has followed an unquestioning line on Aids) there are signs that the power of the red ribbon is in serious decline. In the United States, where respectable opinion has long held the HIV theory of Aids to be immune to questioning, a controversial 15-page critique in the influential Harper’s Magazine has caused culture shock. As well as detailing a cover-up by government scientists regarding Aids medication trials, the article approvingly quotes scientists who have argued for years that HIV is not the cause of Aids.

Meanwhile the Washington Post last month published an investigation headlined “How Aids in Africa was overstated”, arguing that “increasingly dire” and inaccurate assessments of HIV infection by UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids) had “skewed years of policy judgments and decisions on where to spend precious healthcare dollars”.

In India, a proposed Red Ribbon Campaign through the national rail network has been abandoned, following a national convention on HIV in Bangalore last October attended by more than 1,500 HIV-positive people where the once-fashionable symbol of Aids awareness was ceremoniously rejected. In front of television cameras, a six-foot red ribbon was cut into pieces as a protest against the “oppressive and patronising” symbol.

Speakers said there were no similar icons of solidarity for people suffering from other diseases. The ribbon’s connotations that “HIV=Aids=Death” – the scientific orthodoxy subscribed to by UN agencies, pharmaceutical interests and thousands of activists around the world – was said to further the isolation, discrimination and sense of doom suffered as a result of an HIV diagnosis. Veena Dhari, the first woman in India to declare herself HIV-positive, said that when HIV-positive people see the ribbon “we feel like committing suicide”. She called on all Aids organisations to stop using it.

The story appeared on the front pages of newspapers as well as national television in India, where media have proved more resistant than in most African countries to huge pressures to conform to international opinion on HIV/Aids.

Two years ago Richard Holbrooke, former US Ambassador to the United Nations and now president of the Global Business Coalition on HIV/Aids, an alliance of 200 international companies promoting Aids testing, treatment and support, said in Washington that a major impediment in dealing with Aids globally was that many governments – and people – were still in "a denial phase – they believe they have no Aids problem."

Citing India as an example, he said that if it did not change its policies, it would soon have the highest HIV/Aids tally in the world. By last year that had already happened, according to Richard Feacham, head of the Geneva-based Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the main beneficiary of the Product RED initiative.

"The epidemic is growing very rapidly. It is out of control," Feachem said in Paris. "There is nothing happening in India today that is big or serious enough to prevent it." India had to wake up, because without action, "millions and millions and millions are going to die."

That is not the view of Anju Singh, of JACKINDIA, a Delhi-based Aids policy study group. Singh, chief guest at the Bangalore convention, told The Business last week that "there are no reports – not even anecdotal ones – that reflect visible proof of an epidemic in this country." The official estimate for HIV infections is around 5m; but a dearth of Aids cases – averaging 10,000 a year over the past 10 years - suggests that is grossly wrong.

Nor has there been any abnormal increase in death rates, even in suspected "high risk groups" such as red light areas. The Indian government does not publish data for Aids deaths; but "questions we got asked in Parliament have elicited a cumulative figure of 1,100." When UNAIDS published a figure of 310,000 Aids deaths in India in 1999 alone, and a cumulative total of 558,000 Aids orphans, JACKINDIA challenged them publicly. In late 2001 the figures were withdrawn – but only after being used earlier that year to project the state of the epidemic in India at the UN General Assembly Special Session on HIV/Aids in New York.

"For years now, agencies like the CIA, World Bank, UNDP, UNAIDS, a plethora of NGOs as well as articles published in respected science journals have been talking of an exploding epidemic in India, and Africa-like conditions," Singh said. "We have consistently challenged the agencies that claim India is underplaying figures and is in denial; none of them has been able to provide any alternative data or evidence to substantiate their claims."

The iconoclastic Harper’s article, entitled "Out of Control: Aids and the corruption of medical science", has sparked intense debate. Greeted by a chorus of condemnation and calls for the resignation of Harper’s editor, it has nevertheless found many defenders. It was written by Celia Farber, a journalist and long-standing critic of the science surrounding the HIV theory.

In an editorial, the Columbia Journalism Review accused the magazine of "racing right over a cliff" in publishing Farber. A blog called New Aids Review responded that the editorial was "a poor specimen of what journalism students are learning at one of the great universities", adding that the author would do better to write a thesis on "The Media in Aids: How Journalists Failed the American Public".

But even some long-standing HIV/Aids activists have admitted themselves shaken by the facts Farber set out about the lethal potential of some antiviral drugs; and the controversy has also taken the lid off a claim made repeatedly in response to attempts to reopen debate on the causes of Aids, that only a handful of scientists question the orthodox view.

Thanks to the internet, an association started 14 years ago to press for a scientific reappraisal of the HIV/Aids hypothesis now lists more than 2,300 public dissenters, including Nobel Laureates in chemistry and medicine on its website (http://rethinkaids.info/quotes/rethinkers.htm). Many have advanced degrees in the sciences and medicine as well as direct experience of working in the public health sector in Africa and other supposedly HIV-ravaged parts of the world.

One of these is Dr Rebecca Culshaw, assistant professor of mathematics at the University of Texas, a mathematical biologist who for 10 years studied and published models of HIV disease and treatment. In an internet posting entitled "Why I Quit HIV", Culshaw calls for a ban on HIV tests. She says they do "immeasurably more harm than good" because of an "astounding" lack of specificity and standardisation; she adds that many people are being treated with drugs on the basis of an insupportable theory. "My work … has been built in large part on the paradigm that HIV causes Aids and I have since come to realise that there is good evidence that the entire basis for this theory is wrong."

In Australia, the idea that anyone can be diagnosed as infected with HIV is to face a court challenge. In a hearing set down for July, the lawyer for a man found guilty of endangering the lives of three women through having unprotected sex (one woman has tested positive, while the other two are negative) is to call evidence from a Perth-based group of scientists who during nearly 25 years researching the scientific literature on Aids have come to an even more radical conclusion than the American dissenters quoted in Harper’s. The group (www.theperthgroup.com) will testify that "HIV" has never been isolated from the tissues of Aids patients; and that in consequence the HIV test has never been validated and there is no proof HIV is transmitted sexually.

Dr Robert Gallo, the American government researcher whose team developed and marketed the first test kits, says in a letter in this month’s Harper’s that "no test in medicine is perfect, but done correctly and with a confirmatory second test, the HIV blood test developed in our laboratory comes close." Gallo and others, including activists promoting anti-viral drugs in South Africa, make similar assertions in their rebuttal of Farber’s article stating that: "HIV tests were highly accurate from the time they were developed in 1984 and have become much more accurate over time as the underlying technology has evolved. HIV tests are amongst the most accurate available in medical science."

In fact, as demonstrated in a two-part investigation published in The Business in May 2004 (see panel), experts have known since the early years of Aids that "HIV" test kits could not be used to diagnose Aids. Delegates at a World Health Organisation meeting in Geneva in 1986 heard that the kits were licensed to protect blood and plasma donations, not as a screen for Aids or people at risk of Aids. But, dictated by public health needs, usage had expanded and "it was simply not practical" to stop this, as Dr Thomas Zuck, of the US Food and Drug Administration, put it.

The 100 experts from 34 countries heard that, though the tests were useful in safeguarding blood supplies, something more was needed to distinguish genuine infection with HIV. Dr James Allen, of the US Centres for Disease Control Aids programme, said studies suggested some people were reacting to components of the cell line used to grow HIV for many of the test kits licensed in America. Other reactions occurred because of antibodies to normal cell proteins, naturally occurring in the body. Allen warned that the problems could be magnified in areas of the world that did not have the sophisticated facilities of America.

The meeting was told that a so-called "confirmatory test", called western blot, relied on the same principle as the test kits it was supposed to be checking and so was liable to the same kind of false-positive reactions. Subsequent research has repeatedly confirmed this problem: more than 60 conditions that cause such false-positives have been documented. One is tuberculosis, which produces symptoms of Aids as defined in Africa and is immensely widespread among impoverished people.

As the HIV/Aids paradigm won worldwide acceptance, increasingly complex procedures for trying to make a reliable diagnosis came into being. But the basic problem – not being able to validate any of these procedures against pure virus taken from patients – still remains.

Harper’s has published pages of letters in the latest (May) issue in response to Farber’s article, which appeared in March. Roughly half are supportive, half against. The first letter is from Culshaw, who writes: "This debate should have happened long ago, before an unproven hypothesis of an immune-destroying retrovirus was thrust upon a vulnerable public, and without being thoroughly critiqued in the scientific literature. Despite the promises made in 1984, there is still no cure and no vaccine. Instead, there has been a fundamental erosion in scientific and clinical-trial standards, with implications reaching far beyond HIV.

"To do the best we can for those affected by Aids – including those in Africa, where Aids presents a clinical picture quite different from that in the developed world – there urgently needs to be an honest scientific debate."

There is an association between testing HIV-positive and risk of developing Aids. This is the main reason why scientists believe HIV is the cause of Aids. But the link is artificial, a consequence of the way the test kits were made.

It never proved possible to validate the tests by culturing, purifying and analysing particles of the purported virus from patients who test positive, then demonstrating that these are not present in patients who test negative. This was despite heroic efforts to make the virus reveal itself in patients with Aids or at risk of Aids, in which their immune cells were stimulated for weeks in laboratory cultures using a variety of agents.

After the cells had been activated in this way, HIV pioneers found some 30 proteins in filtered material that gathered at a density characteristic of retroviruses. They attributed some of these to various parts of the virus. But they never demonstrated that these so-called "HIV antigens" belonged to a new retrovirus.

So, out of the 30 proteins, how did they select the ones to be defined as being from HIV? The answer is shocking, and goes to the root of what is probably the biggest scandal in medical history. They selected those that were most reactive with antibodies in blood samples from Aids patients and those at risk of Aids.

This means that "HIV" antigens are defined as such not on the basis of being shown to belong to HIV, but on the basis that they react with antibodies in Aids patients. Aids patients are then diagnosed as being infected with HIV on the basis that they have antibodies which react with those same antigens. The reasoning is circular.

Gay men leading "fast-track" sex lives, drug addicts, blood product recipients and others whose immune systems are exposed to multiple challenges and who are at risk of Aids are much more likely to have raised levels of the antibodies looked for by the tests than healthy people – because the antigens in the tests were chosen on the basis that they react with antibodies in Aids patients. But this association does not prove the presence of a lethal new virus.

The tests do discriminate between healthy blood and the blood of patients with Aids or Aids-like conditions, because Aids patients suffer a range of active infections and other blood abnormalities, some of which are transmissible. This is why the tests are useful as a screen for the safety of blood supplies.

But to tell even one person that they are HIV-infected on the grounds that they have antibodies that react with the proteins in these tests is an unwarranted assault.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Letter To ABC - Boston Legal HIV Extravaganza

This short mail was sent to ABC today asking for a response from the writers and the producers of the show to explain their position on this issue.




Boston Legal tackles HIV and argues infection on the basis of unlikely situations, hypocritical moralising and platitudes.

As a gay man and a member of a so called "risk group" who is specifically targeted by this industry I find it disturbing that the show has abandoned reason and is now a probaganda piece for the AIDS industry.

Can the writes and producers please explain their sources and references.


Manu.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Challenging The Writes & Producers Of Boston Legal On The Subject Of HIV

Boston Legal tackles HIV in an episode titled A Chicken & The Leg and opts for cheap propaganda, science fiction, hypocritical moralising and platitudes even Tony Kushner would have avoided.

Apart from the absurd idea that a school should acts a pusher and agent for the condom and sex industries, and that it is always someone else’s fault when someone gets sick because they have taken something, or done something they should not have, and who has the real responsibility to teach them that there are consequences for everything in life, and the silly counter-argument being that of “abstinence”, add the unreal situation presented by a 15 year old WHITE girl getting infected by HIV, which is so far out it’s not true, and the whole argument became cringingly bad, horribly manipulative, totally misleading and simply not credible on any level, as well as highly offensive, hurtful and insulting to those who are either targeted specifically or affected directly by the Kafkain dimensions of the HIV nightmare and the extremely powerful industry that runs it.

This speech is on a level with one of Jerry Springer's closing speeches about commitment and love, which end his trashy shows. This writing is really no better. Alan Shore was at his worse. James Spader resorting to tears...it is painful to watch him.

Rumbero04 seems to represent the views and opinions expressed in the show. Alan Shore and his hypocritical platitudes; especially about condom use, when it is clear he seems not yo bother with them himslef. He uses arguments based on hysteria and fear about HIV and AIDS that glorify this unfounded general and majority opinion, which is based on marketing rather than any fact, and as expressed here with such sureness by Rumbero04 as it was by Alan Shore in the show.

I challenge these opinion on the grounds that they are unfounded and unproven. Boston Legal has now entered into an arena where it is peddling lies to the public, after having given more than ample clues that it knows well what is going on, not just with AIDS, but with many other politically motivated and big pharma driven voodoo sold as illnesses, syndromes and pandemics, such as has been exposed by Boston Legal many times but particularly as was so brilliantly illustrated in Alan Shore's winning argument in the episode entitled: Selling Sickness.

This must be challenged. As a gay man and a member of a so called "risk group" who is specifically targeted by this industry.

I challenge the writers and producers to show me their sources and proof?
__________

Answering Rumbero04

Rumbero04 wote:
It is a shame to use this kind of forum…

I say:
This forum is a Boston Legal forum. I have every right to come here just as you do and express my opinions on the show. I did not tackle this issue Boston Legal did.

Rumbero04 wrote:
…to spread such an irresponsible information.

I say:
Irresponsible? How dare you claim to be the responsible one here for just sticking to the comfortable official view of an unproven scientific hypothesis, turned into big money spinner for the left-wing, and the supreme assurance of moral superiority for the right-wing, as well as an excuse for all the rest in the western world to vent old hates and prejudices disguised as care, solidarity and concern.

Irresponsible? How responsible is it for a show that takes this unproven and very contentious issue such as this, and think it can just skate through using platitudes; worse than those found in Angles In America, coupled with an argument surrounding HIV infection focused on a 15 year white old girl; which is about as real and probable as me ever playing Juliet on Broadway. AIDS is clearly something that works mainly on the basis of “risk groups” i.e.: gay men and dark skinned people, who are the real targets in the HIV & AIDS story. This was pure manipulation of fact and insideous in content and aim.

By doing this, the show has come totally out in support of a particular view, and has entered the arena officially as pushing fraudulent tests and toxic medication on people, resorting to propaganda to do it with.

Rumbero04 worte:
It is a fact: HIV causes AIDS.

I say:
Really? Where is the proof for that? I challenge you, or any of the writers and the producers of this show to present me with the proof that HIV causes AIDS. They should know that there is no test yet in existence that can actually detect anything remotely specific to HIV, virus or antibodies, let alone proof that HIV can provoke the collapse of the entire immune system and cause 30+ pre-existing diseases and conditions which have been all lumped together under one umbrella called AIDS when all these conditions have their own probable causes and cures. All this when we don't even have a test to detect it.

Look here again and read:

It says quite categorically: At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.
From Abbott Labs EIA HIV test kit literature.

Now that is a fact whether you like it or not!

Here are more: HIV Tests

If you have this proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS then why don’t you present it and claim this reward; which has been there for years now and no one claims it. It’s genuine. Go on. Go for it. You or any of the producers or writers on the show; given you are all so sure.

Alive & Well $50,000 Fact Finder Award Find One Study, Save Countless Lives.

No one claims it because there is NOTHING WITH WHICH TO EVEN DETECT HIV, NO VIRUS ISOLATION, NO PURIFIED GOLD PARTICULATE STANDARD. NOTHING. So the idea of HIV causing AIDS; 30+ diseases and conditions is nothing short of laughable. It’s pure “flat-earth” stuff. Everyone believed that too.

The official version on AIDS has convinced everyone that having HIV is like being possessed by the Devil; once you have it everything is possible. Well forgive for being sceptical; I just get reeks of that old rancid smell of Leviticus creeping in through the back window…

Rumbero04 wrote:
I have seen babies dying of it…

I say:
Seen babies dying? So did the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the USA. She said she saw them dyeing because evil Iraqi soldiers were throwing them out of incubators. Just a little advice here: the babies’ thing always smacks of manipulation of the really putrid kind, so please spare us and that one try something else.

But if you really want to see why babies or their mothers may die when there is an HIV connection you should read or see these:

Celia Farber published in Harpers magazine: Out Of Control

Liam Scheff for the BBC- The Guinea Pig Kids

Also, I have seen many many grown healthy men die in the space of months. They came out of the clinic with a diagnosis based on that test and were told they were going to die unless they took AZT in huge quantities. They did and they died. But it was not a virus that killed them. It was the medication. That too is a fact whether you like it or not. I certainly don’t. Look at what AZT is: AZT

Rumbero04 wrote:
…getting the virus from their mothers.

I say:
Again this is unproven and you are wrong to rely on that like it were a fact, it is unproven as we have no way of detecting HIV yet.

Rumbero04 wrote:
Please do not make a WACO kind of issue out of a very scientific one.

I say:
You can call me anything you like. Calling names is the best way to attack when you are in danger of being exposed as an idiot, but I understand your panic better than you think.

As far as WAKO goes you can look here where you can see there are so many more highly qualified scientific professionals, some even holding Nobel prizes who just like me have gone WAKO: List
More highly qualified WAKOS:
Peter Duesberg Ph.D.professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley.
Kary Mullis Ph.D. is a Biochemist who got the 1993 Nobel prize for his invention of the Polymerase Chain Reaction, a technique used in AIDS tests.
The Perth Group

Rumbero04 wrote:
BTW it was a great episode!

I say:
It was shoddy, cheap, propagandistic nonsense announcing that Boston Legal will no longer sit on the fence making ambiguous statements about AIDS as it has done so many times in the past, but as of now it is at the service of the AID$ industry and big pahrma as far as AIDS goes at least.

I am a gay man with a 16 year HIV+ diagnosis, whatever that means, who was put on daily chemo for 7 years because one day I visited my doctor I had Alopecia on my chin! Which you can actually see from my photo that i still have now. it comes and goes. I think it looks cool, well cooler than a sunken face, no ass and a huge belly do anyway. You see, if you are HIV+ even Alopecia is enough to warrant chemo. You are put on a regimen of daily toxic liver damaging and body deforming drugs called “life-saving” by the industry and by some stuck in the AIDS zone. I have been off all that now for nearly two years, as soon as I realized that it was all a fraud. I have turned my back on the whole thing and proved it’s a sham. There are 1000’s more like me, that the medical establishment and the media just ignore like we don't even exist and just keep sellingt sickness and fear.

I strongly object to this sudden change of heart and hardening up of the line taken by Boston Legal on HIV issues, as an (ex) fan, and a gay man directly affected by both the fraudulent and dangerous pushing of HIV death cult rituals and lies on people, also from the effect arising form yet another TV show contributing to sell fear, terrorize and bully people to get tested and take medication, where the reality for any 15 year old white girl getting tested, cannot begin to compare with that for any gay man or darker skinned person getting tested; save the likes of Oprah, Tyra & Obama, of course, who do it all the time on TV, for better ratings, sick entertainment, because they are paid to do so by pharmaceuticals, or to get elected, and knowing full well that they will never get a positive result.

I'll leave you all with Lee Evans.

A Conveniet Pack Of Lies = An Oscar And A Nobel Prize

WTF?

First he won an Oscar, now Al Gore gets a NOBEL on the same week he is officially exposed as a liar by a British court and Government experts.

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’




By Noel Sheppard
October 9, 2007 - 00:55 ET

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning, wouldn't you agree?

For those that haven't been following this case, a British truck driver filed a lawsuit to prevent the airing of Gore's alarmist detritus in England's public schools.

According to the website of the political party the plaintiff, Stewart Dimmock, belongs to (ecstatic emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano): In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that:
  1. The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
  2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
  3. Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?
  1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
  2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
  3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
  4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
  5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
  6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
  7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
  8. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
  9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
  10. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
  11. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
In the end, a climate change skeptic in the States must hope that an American truck driver files such a lawsuit here so that a U.S. judge can make similar determinations. Of course, even if one could find such an impartial jurist, our media wouldn't find it newsworthy, would they?

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.


Read more here-Global warming heresy

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Calling In The Whoring Stars



In one week we have had Annie Lennox using HIV and AIDS lies to sell her new album, which no one will buy of course, as she has been finished since the 80’s.

Then you have what used to be a really good show: Boston Legal, which this week went on to loose all credibility as the hippest show on TV. The show had dealt intelligently with controversial issues; up till last night, where the airing of A Chicken In The Leg announced a truce with big pharma. In this episode Alan Shore gives a speech on how HIV is the cause of AIDS, and that there are plenty of pills for HIV ,and we all simply must take them. Oh, and preaches at us to use condoms too of course, though he never seems to bother using them himslef. This had put the final nail in the coffin of a show that has finally exposed itself totally as being nothing more than at the sole service of the out of control left-wing lies factory.

My reaction apart form a written protest, was to throw series 1, 2 & 3 in the bin this morning and I will not be following series 4. Down with Crane Poole & Schmidt & Alan Shore is a Whore.

Stephen Fry with BBC2 HIV & Me: This little bomb of lies and propaganda gave the opportunity for yet another artist to do his goody-two-shoes concerned actor thing, whilst really what he is doing is a nice bit of whoring for AIDS Inc. as well. He is selling propaganda and voodoo for money.

It is time to discredit the entire left-wing lie factory and its representatives, which are the entertainment industry whores in all their forms, especially the ones who use their fame to push propaganda and deadly lies for economic profit or for better ratings. Elton John, Bono, Oprah, Emma Thompson, Richard Gere, Sharon Stone, even Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins who have been involves with auctioning a love chair to raise money for AMFAR, which is a gay organization that receives money for big pharma to kill other gay men by pushing that fraudulent test on them and later toxic medication. The list is endless.

It’s time to boycott these clowns, send them back to the “nunnery” where they belong, that’s if piracy in general does not finish them off first, which I hope it does. They try and convince us that it would be a huge tragedy for humanity; I have my doubts about that, as it will probably be the saving grace humanity needs.

Where would all these lies be without such frauds and mediocrities posing as artists ready to sell them? Shame on them all, who do they think they are kidding?

There was a time where I used to respect what were termed “aware” artists. Now I am the one who is aware that they are all a danger and a menace to humanity, who has been convinced that our pantheon of mediocrities we call artists are the best ones to judge what is good for us and what is the truth behind any given crisis humanity faces.

If you would not trust a street whore with that why do you trust one just because he or she appears on TV?

That I suppose is the million-dollar question.

Saturday, October 06, 2007

Memorable Productions-MEDEA London 2001

This is a re-post of an old post. The video makes it worth posting again, even though the clip of the show itself is criminally short, the interview with Fiona Shaw is well worth watching.
MEDEA
Euripides
Translated by Kenneth McLeish & Frederic Raphael
Directed by Deborah Warner
Starring: Fiona Shaw (Medea), Jonathan Cake (Jason)
Abby Theatre Dublin Production

Design: Tom Pye
OriginalLighting Design: Peter Mumford
Associate Lighting Designer: Michael Gunning
Costume Design: Jacqueline Durann
Soundscapes: Mel Mercier
Sound Designer: David Mescher

Quite simply the best production of a Greek tragedy I have ever seen, or ever will see again, as I am sure that it will take a very long time for a production to achieve such monumentally shattering immediacy with a play written over 2000 years ago. Part of the credit has to go to the Kenneth McLeish & Frederic Raphael collaboration on the translation of the text which is nothing short of brilliant.

I had always liked Deborah Warner’s work. Her early days at the Royal Shakespeare Company are marked by two very good and highly acclaimed productions; Shakespeare’s King John & Titus Andronicus. I was also lucky enough to see Fiona Shaw’s debut at the National Theatre as Lydia Languish in The Rivals, and could see from the start that she was an actor with special qualities.

The collaboration between the two women spans nearly two decades now; Electra again at the RSC, followed by Hedda Gabler. Later came the controversial Richard II, where Fiona Shaw plays the role of the King himself. T.S. Elliot’s The Waste Land was another project of note they did together. Their collaborations are always eagerly awaited as together they have set a new standard in theatre-land. The moment you learn that they are about to do something together again, you can't help that feeling of anticipation. You know that whatever it is they undertake, they will end up re-defining it in some way or another. Even when dealing with high issues or extreme emotions, they are supremely subtle, even when hitting you on the head with a sledgehammer, as was the case with Electra and now Medea, they always do it with great intelligence and masses of style. Medea, in my opinion is, to date, their most powerful collaboration.

I went to see the new production two days after it opened in London. I went with my sister and my partner at the time. We all came out of the theatre literally shaking. We were admittedly sitting in the third row, so apart from usual unpredictabiliy of the mainly itinerant staging; with actors just popping up all over the auditorium in the shape of furious kings, angry husbands, terrified messengers and of the chorus of local women; which was all very unsettling, there also were burning toys being hurled at great speed, a huge knife being waved in everyone's face constantly, Tupperware box full of Spanish tortilla, a large canister of gasoline and Medea’s dress all flying around too, not to mention nearly getting spattered with children’s blood as well as bloodied water form the pool, that was centre stage, and round which Medea puts the blood soaked bodies of the boys she hacks to death, and where Jason tries to drown her in disgust and horror at the sight…the list of very scary things going on all around you was endless. It was literally a blood bath.

The scariest thing of all was to experience at close range a characterization so powerful and rare. No matter how on the verge Fiona Shaw’s Medea was, she still managed to come out as probably the most human and certainly the wittiest Medea in history. She gets you to laugh with her, then when you relax, she takes you by the hair and drags you screaming to hell; huge knife in hand and clad in bra, panties, transparent plastic overcoat, high-heels and fully doused in gasoline!

It was a once in a lifetime experience.
Theatre at it’s very best.



Here is a short clip of the show and Fiona Shaw talking about her role on Charlie Rose.
video

It's not that you doubt the intelligence of Ms. Shaw's Medea. But her lacerating misfortunes have broken the circuits of that intelligence, and her responses are a toxic jumble. She seems to wear her nerves outside her skin. Numbness and excruciating pain, shrill anger and mordant, bizarre humor flit across her raw features in disjunctive parade.
NY Times & Post reviews.Read here.
London Theatre review.

BBC