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

Saturday, June 14, 2008

The BBC & The Defiant Macabre Side Of AIDS: African Court Rules Vitamins Kill But Toxic "Black-Box" Medication Is Good For Africans

African Court Rules:


No Vitamins For Africans.
Vitamins Kill!

"Black Box" Label Medication Is Good For You!

AZT


BBC article

The BBC and its reporting of "AIDS"
The BBC, having ignored the latest admissions of LIES by the World Health Organisation's AIDS machine, the BBC either seems to be oblivious of the fact that the AIDS machine is under question right now, for 25 years of lies, after Kevin De Cock's admission that WHO had LIED about heterosexual AIDS ever having been a real threat published by The Independent.

Now the BBC joins forces with Gand inquisitor of the AIDS Religion JP Moore of AIDSTruthiness.org


They report on this news implying it is some sort of "victory" for common sense prevailing on "AIDS" in Africa. The last piece of EXTREMELY IMPORTANT news on "AIDS" before this one for the BBC, was that Madonna and Sharon (Karma) Stone were in Cannes playing AIDS whores. This news for the BBC was far more important that the WHO admission of LIES that heterosexual AIDS never even was!

In fact, when one runs over all the reporting on AIDS the BBC has run in the last year alone, it is not difficult to see that AIDS reporting is strictly limited to scaremongering, AIDS banalities and AIDS machine propaganda. The BBC always seems there to help out AIDSTruth when they are in a tight spot, such as they were with Liam Scheff's The Guinea Pig Kids documentary controversy, when they apologised for supposed "errors" in the documentary, probably after JP Moore sent them one of those emails he likes to send about this being a war and how he is going to crush everyone who stands in his way.

Now after TOTALLY IGNORING the latest monumental pieces of REAL NEWS on AIDS, the BBC comes back with a piece like this one today, just like AIDSTruth have, after a deathly silence these last few days. They report this as if it were something other than nonsensical, and to people this is totally nonsensical, hideous even, especially in the light of the latest revelation and lies. We are supposed to sigh in relief that an African judge has declared that Vitamins kill but AZT doesn't. AZT is good. Good God!!

It is alarming how much the BBC seems to be ignorant of the fact, that right now, when one filters this news through the general aura of SLEAZE that has been admitted officially these last few days, not just by De Cock but others as well such as in The Guardian article from last week, people actually see this for what it is: TERRIBLE, CRUEL and NONSENSICAL!!
Not surprising considering we all take fistfuls of them every morning.

The BBC is not some blogger. The BBC has duties that go beyond those a blogger has.
  • How does the BBC justify the one sided reporting on a controversy, a scandal such as AIDS is finally turning out to be, by ignoring the important news and reporting only half the news? The half JPMoore likes?
  • Is the BBC not aware that the public can see that they are picking and choosing what to report on AIDS instead of reporting everything and letting the public make informed decisions on what to believe?
  • Does the BBC think that the public is stupid?
  • Does the BBC not think it immoral that all they print on AIDS, is AIDS machine propaganda, instead of serious thought provoking information and ALL the facts?
  • Does the BBC not see what we all see how this latest piece of news looks when you put it into the greater context of all that has happened this last week?
  • Is the BBC trying to mislead the public?
Also:
  • WHAT INTEREST DOES THE BBC HAVE IN WORKING WITH THIS MAN WHO THREATENS THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH HIM WITH SQUASHING THEM?
  • HOW IS THIS SERVING THE BRITISH PUBLIC?
  • HOW IS THIS SERVING THE WORLD?
  • HOW IS THIS SERVING THE REPUTATION OF THE BBC AS AN INSTITUTION?
  • WHERE IS THE ARTICLE ABOUT THE TERRIBLE ADMISSIONS THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS MADE THAT HETEROSEXUAL AIDS WAS A BIG POLITICALLY CONSTRUCTED LIE? THAT IS THE BIG NEWS RIGHT NOW.
  • DOES THE BBC NOT SEE THAT IT IS TAKING THINGS OUT OF A GREATER CONTEXT TO HELP ONE SIDE OF THE AIDS DEBATE CONTINUE WITH THEIR WORK EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN DISCREDITED?
  • DOES THE BBC NOT THINK IT HAS A DUTY TO MAKE SURE IT IS FAIR AND HONEST IN ITS REPORTING OF THIS TERRIBLE MESS, AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT A HUGE QUESTION MARKS IS NOW ON THE INTEGRITY OF MANY PERSONS WHO HAD THE PUBLICS TRUST SUCH AS ALL THOSE WHO SIGNED THE DURBAN DECLARATION?
  • DOES THE BBC NOT THINK IT GRAVE THAT THAT TRUST HAS BEEN BROKEN?
  • DOES THE BBC NOT THINK IT GRAVE THAT IT KEEPS SILENT ON THAT FACT?
  • IS THERE NOTHING BETTER THE BBC CAN DO WITH BRITISH TAXPAYERS MONEY THAN SUPPORT AIDS PROPAGANDA INSTEAD OF REPORTING ALL THE NEWS?
  • IS THE BBC NOT WORRIED THAT IT HAS NO CREDIBILITY ANYMORE ON AIDS REPORTING AS IT IS OBVIOUS TO ALL THAT IT IS NOT DOING ITS DUTY?
  • WHO THE HELL IS THE BBC KIDDING?
  • WHAT KIND OF OBVIOUS SUPERFICIAL ONE SIDED MISLEADING AIDS REPORTING IS THIS?
WHAT A SHAM!

THE BBC REPORTING ON AIDS IS TOTALLY OUT OF STEP. THEY IGNORE THE MOST IMPORTANT NEWS
ON THE AIDS MESS UNFOLDING RIGHT NOW AND SEEM ONLY ABLE TO REPORT THE OBSOLETE STAR STUDDED AIDS BANALITIES OR JUDICIAL ONES LIKE THIS ONE, THAT TELL AFRICA AND THE WORLD TO SHUT UP AND:


COZ WE KNOW BEST!

WHAT AN INSULT!!!

THIS NEWS IS GROTESQUE!!!

Now quick, bring on Annie Lennox.
Sing sister sing!!!
Before we all die from the stench of horse manure and Vitamin C




15 comments:

Dan said...

I figure that the BBC, like the NYTimes, are going to be the last to admit how wrong they've been on the subject of "AIDS".

Until then, they're going to keep on with their AIDS cheerleading, which includes: fear mongering, lies, distortions and hysteria...as this is all they know what to do concerning this subject.

I wouldn't get too bent out of shape over this. People are waking up and can finally start seeing the toxic absurdity in an article like this latest from the BBC.

Manu said...

Sure they are. That is why I say it. The only difference is that the BBC unlike the NYTImes is payed for by the British taxpayer money to INFORM THEM OF ALL THE NEWS and not the parts of the story that for some reason they have OMITTED TO REPORT THE BIG WHOPPING and MOST IMPORTANT PART OF.

The BBC must report it or the BBC is GUILTY OF MISLEADING THAT SAME PUBLIC WHOSE TAXES (license money) IT SURVIVES ON.

The BBC also has a reputation to uphold that i really think supersedes that of the NYTimes.

The BBC is is just not credible anymore and that means that the British Government is not credible anymore on AIDS. That burden the NYTimes does not have.

LS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LS said...

It's a great set of points and questions, and it's true, in my experience. The BBC is at war with itself, and with journalism, when it comes to Aids (and Sars, bird flu, and other invented or exaggerated medical panics).

And, just so you know, the complaints made against the film were issued by Aidstruth, and signed by Aidstruth - and that is John P. Moore, Jeanne Bergman, Nicholas Bennett, Mark Wainberg and, notably for the above piece - Nathan Geffen's group -

And the complaint came because - Because David Rasnick, a chemist who understands the workings of the black-box 'aids drugs,' dared to Appear in the film And to openly describe the known and recorded toxicities of these drugs. And because the film didn't say that "children were wonderfully saved with these wonderful (black box, highly toxic) drugs!"

Rasnick is listed in that BBC article you cite, and has a lot to say about how Africacns feel about the Aids cabal. Note the BBC didn't bother to quote him. Look up his work on the web, or in the BMJ debates on Aids and Sex.

That was the totality of their ability to complain. That the film didn't say, "YAY AIDS DRUGS!!" That it reported the points of view of people actually taking the drugs - that the drugs made them sick, and that they were better off without the AZT and Nevirapine than with it.

And the BBC capitulated, to some real degree, because it's never "the BBC", it's always some panicky suit on the 37th floor of an office building, being faced by a cabal of skunks who claim authority over any and everyone else in the world, when it comes to their pet project and bizzarro belief system ("we must drug everyone! all the time! everyone! all the time! Orphans? Yes! Them too, no refusing!")

So, that was their complaint, and that was Aidstruth, and John P. Moore, who crowed it from the rafters (Here) at Tara Smith's intellectually defunct and, Jesus, "disemvoweled" playground (Here). And that's a fact that they reveled and gloried in... briefly. They posted their Pravda-esque complaint on their site, and made a little fuss, and the BBC suit wet her pants and allowed them to dictate to the world their reporting policy.

Then, when the BBC pooped itself with fear, "Doc" Nick Bennett, of the Aidstruth cabal, actually posted on his un-commentable blog that he was glad that the BBC finally did something to denigrate the documentary. I wrote him and said, 'Nick, you moron, it was You who threatened them with being called 'holocaust denialists', not some grassroots, "give me more AZT 'cause I love it so much and it makes me feel so good" groundswell. But you, Bergman (who can't tolerate it when children and teenagers won't take all the drugs she wants and, it seems, psychologically needs them to (Here's her worldview), and John Moore, and Nathan Geffen, and the other drug-company monkeys.

All that said, you should take strong note of one additonal piece of information:

John P. Moore has left the building. He pulled his name from their roster within the last couple months, and Wainberg is gone too:


http://www.aidstruth.org/new/about

"The AIDS Truth team members are (in alphabetical order):

* Dr. Nicholas Bennett, Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital, Syracuse, New York
* Dr. Jeanne Bergman, The Center for HIV Law and Policy in New York City
* Martin Delaney, Founding director of Project Inform
* Dr. Brian Foley, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico
* Nathan Geffen, Treatment Action Campaign, Cape Town, South Africa
* Gregg Gonsalves, AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa
* Eduard Grebe, AIDS and Society Research Unit, University of Cape Town, South Africa
* Dr. Bette Korber, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico
* Dr. Nicoli Nattrass, Director of the AIDS and Society Research Unit, University of Cape Town, South Africa
* Ken Witwer, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

The team would like to thank Bob Funkhouser for a substantial amount of work on this website over the last few years."

What's Johnny "Moore drugs is Money for Me" doing? Is he hiding ahead of the curve, ahead of the crashing wave?

Where's Johnny gone to?

Dan said...

Wow, Liam,

Mr. Moore's leaving the AIDStruth cabal is news to me.

Now, what have I been saying on my blog about key players looking for other things to do, i.e. 'jumping ship'?

So you say he's been off the roster for a couple of months? Happened without fanfare, it seems.

I say some of the big names in AIDS have had their escapes planned for months, possibly.

The recent slew of backtracking AIDS articles are by design. They're a call to the forces to pull the plug and abandon ship.

Am I right? Looks like it, so far.

Manu said...

Well f*ck me!!

JPMoore HAS GONE??!!

And Tara Smith announces that she MAY jump ship too!

She turned all posts on the WHO admission of lies on AIDS into what look like passages from the Torah. Told us we were all trolls and rude and says

WHEN/IF

she will write about AIDS...

Here have a look:

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2008/06/iowas_floodedand_its_raining.php#comment-932787

Frank said...

Yegads Manu - my sentiments exactly!
The two biggest gobby foghorns on the matter have slunk away, like the cockroaches that they are, to hide in a crack in the pavement - and the yellow-bellies hope nobody will see them much less step on them.
Well Tara and JayPee we won't let anyone forget you. You two as much as any of the AIDS gravy train DESERVE to have your utterings and blusterings held up in perpetuity, for all the world to see.

Bennett said...

LS - My uncommentable blog? Alas, it is I who allowed you to comment, and YOU who censored my comments on YOUR blog.

http://aidsmyth.blogspot.com/2008/01/further-falls-in-my-estimation.html

Caught stretching the truth again it seems...

Cheers

Bennett

LS said...

Please, ladies and gentlemen, entering into the arena, the great libeler, "doc" Nick Bennett, a man who can ignore the death of anyone on an Aids drug - as long as they were taking them on schedule...

Bennett, welcome.

Questions!

1) So, are you saying you'll debate now, N.B.? Before you wouldn't.

2) Are you saying you'll open your blog and let comments be posted without censorship?

3) So, I can send an open invitation to meet at your blog, and you'll debate on the issues?

Because you've always stated that you're hear to "correct" people who disagree with you, "but not debate them."

So, are you inviting debate? Or are you just tooting your horn?

If you're announcing that your blog is now open for comments, we'll be right along.

Let us know, Aidstruth'er.

But let's start, and see what you can answer while you're here:

You're part of Aidstruth. You're on the board with Nathan Geffen. Geffen has just worked to ban the use of micronutrient studies in South Africa.

A) Are you in favor of banning micronutrient studies in South Africa?

B) Where have John P. Moore, Mark Wainburg and Richard Jeffries gone?

They were all on the board of Aidstruth, and now they have fled. Their names are gone from your list of members. Where are they?

Why have the abandoned the Aidstruth site?


C) Are there any micronutrient studies that improve the health of people given the clinical, subjective and non-standardized faux-diagnosis of "Aids?"


D) Are you at risk for "Hiv" according to the WHO's new and improved risk groups? (Are you a MSM, African or intravenous drug user)?

If not, what is the probability that a reactive "hiv test" represent a "true positive" when you take it and have a "reactive" test?

(Let's say that you've been milking cows lately, or petting a dog, and so you've developed antibodies that react with the false and artificial , non-specific test. Cow, dog, mouse, goat and human proteins all make the tests come up reactive, we you know).

What is the probability, then, that you're a "true positive?" Or a "false negative?"

Please calculate the PPV, according to CDC guidelines.


E). No "E". That should get you started. You let us know if you're now so gracious to permit debate.

Again, because in the past, you've been a bloated, cowardly fraud, willing to libel and denigrate, but never to actually debate.

So, you let us know.
Liam Scheff

LS said...

Typos:

State that you're "here," not "hear."
"As you know," or "we all know," not "we you know."

There. Go to it.

LS said...

Posted at Doc Nicky's blog. Posted here too, to make sure it goes up somewhere.

Come back, Nicky boy!

Hey Nicky boy. More of your boy-crush, I see. Creepy, really.

So, what you're not stating here, as usual, is worth more than what you do.

I posted all of your comments, and then stopped when you continuously told people asking you questions that you were there to "instruct" but not to "debate."

You're an incredible BS artist, Bennett, and first-class libeler, but you're a huge coward. You refuse to debate, always.

If you would agree to debate, then I'll let the conversation go on and on, if we're talking about a fair, open, public debate.

But you made it clear that the conversation was over. You were there as our better to lecture the rest of us.

That's not how it goes in the grown-up world. Maybe in the little-boy world of Aids medicine, where hacks like you get away with claiming authority over people you rob and steal choice, life and information from.

And that's where you're comfortable. Where you can tell people what to think. And that's not conversation, and it's not debate.

So, are you saying that you will openly DEBATE the people you openly LIBEL?

You let me know.

The invitation at the This & That is open.

What's a matter, Nicky, you needing a little attention all at once, with the sudden death of half of your paradigm?

No matter. You want all your comments up, you agree to play by some ground rules. Let's see if you can handle these:

You don't call anyone a "denialist." You refer to them respectfully. And you will be treated respectfully in return.

You stick to the subject. We pick a subject, we go through it, and when our points are elucidated sufficiently, we stop, and move to a new subject.

We hold the debate in a public place. You arrange for debates with the other members of Aidstruth, and the people who Aidstruth has libeled.

You want fair posting? Try fair behavior, "doc".

You let me know. You can let Dave Crowe know too. We're open to public debate, everyone you've libeled is.

We've all asked for debate. We're always refused by you, Moore, the rest. Always refused the opportunity.

But we're quite willing. You're not. Or so you've stated over and over.

So, you ready?

I'll be over at the This & That blog, where I posted some questions for you. Let's see if you can answer 'em, and talk about the answers openly.


Okay... we're a-waitin!

LS said...

I posted over at "Doc" Nick's libel factory, (and here too, see above), and he responded, as per usual (and I quote):

"So no, we're not going to debate, because we're fed up with it. It should have stopped 20 years ago."

No debate Bennett.

He shows up, he accuses, he libels, he leaves out more than he includes as usual, and...

Nope. Won't debate. Just likes to fart in other people's faces.

What can be done, Manu? I mean, what can be done when a guy claims absolute authority, libels everyone who challenges him, but refuses to answer a single person?

Manu said...

Well he is either hopelessly in love with YOU Liam or he is just a rude sissy. I posted on it.

Is it homophobic for a queen like me to call someone a sissy?

Michael said...

No, it is not homophobic. After all, a sissy is a sissy and a queen is a queen. I hardly think neither you nor Liz II are even remotely sissyish...

I can't get anyone to talk about the news about HIV. It's like nothing even happened. People just look at me like I am insane and then change the subject.