HIV-Laced Vaccines?
Tom Keske
experimental hepatitis vaccines in sparking the AIDS epidemic
among U.S. gay men. It demonstrates that the most probable
scenario is that the vaccines were intentionally laced with HIV.
The essay can be found at:
http://www.bhc.edu/eastcampus/leeb/aids/aidtesk.htm
> Tom, I have read your statistical analysis of the hepatitis B vaccine
> trials. Has your analysis been reviewed by an independent group? If I
> remember correctly from my data analysis class in graduate school, the
> fact that the participants in the study were solicited for being
> promiscuous would bias your sample and would render any comparisons to a
> general population of gay men meaningless.
It's odd that comments of this type come up so often- I'm not sure
if people are reading carefully enough. I'm very well aware that the
men in the trial were chosen specifically for being promiscuous.
One of the key points in the entire analysis is to try to eliminate
that bias, and also eliminate simply the "blame the victim" syndrome.
Yes, the men were promiscuous. However, they were hardly the
only promiscuous men in the entire city. Many, many gay men
were promiscuous. The entire point is to try to compare against
a control group that is equally promiscuous. It is *not* comparing
against the general gay population.
The essay is arguing at length to illustrate that the control group was
equally, or even more promiscuous, than the test group.
> I have read the works of Drs, Cantwell, Horowitz and Strecker. The
> theory of aids being man made and introduced into the U.S. gay
> population through the hepatitis B vaccines has some problems. While I
> admire their noble inquiry as to how aids infected the U.S gay
> population, their insistence on the hepatitis B vaccine being the method
> of infection may be hurting the credibility of their whole story. That
> is to say people will lose faith in the rest of their argument which has
> been in my opinion well reasoned and documented.
To the contrary, the hepatitis vaccines are the clearest issue in
the mysteries of AIDS origin, IMHO. I find that trying to figure
out exactly what happened in Africa is more difficult, but it
looks very deeply suspicious, and also very much vaccine-related.
The role of the hepatitis vaccines seems obvious enough that I think
our government was being arrogant, and not even trying to hide it
very much.
> Having read many books and articles on aids, many medical experts
> claim HIV has been around well before 1980. Also, the incubation periods
> for developing full blown aids is many years and doesn't square with the
> time period of the vaccine trials. Thanks, Jim Murphy
>
As I said in the essay, the question of whether HIV has been around
for very long, or where it came from, is not relevant to the statistical
analysis. HIV could have been around since the dawn of time, and
could be a product of nature, but that is not to say that it couldn't have
been put into vaccines.
Incubation periods are not a simple matter. It can vary widely. It may
be dependent on the dose of virus- what you get in a vaccine may be
much, much higher than what you get from intercourse. There is
evidence that the incubation period was shorter, in the early days
of the epidemic.
But even more importantly, as the essay stated, I was examining
dates of HIV infection rather than date of AIDS diagnosis. You
can tell the date of HIV infection by blood analysis. The person
can be perfectly asymptomatic.
Thanks for your comments. I urge you to look very, very
carefully before writing off the role of the vaccines. There is
a great deal of propaganda to try to assure the public, and
you have got to try to see through that. The devil is in the details.
Regards, Tom
Tom Keske
I noticed that I missed one question:
> trials. Has your analysis been reviewed by an independent group? If I
I would love for it to be reviewed (and debated, allowing rebuttal).
So far, there is no review because too few notice or care. The issue
of how AIDS really began has been swept under the rug. Most scientific
journals simply censor the issue, or brush it off superficially, trying
to ridicule and degrade the idea, and its proponents.
They are playing their obnoxious, little propaganda games, and the
public is too clueless.
I sent the essay to a place called the "Statistical Assessment Service",
and even enquired about *paying* for an evaluation. No response,
whatsoever.
The author, Robert Lee, who put up the web site that I refer
the most, has taught statistics. He agrees that the analysis is
sound.
The crux of the whole analysis is whether the control group is
a legitimate control group. The statistical methods, and the
math, by themselves, are beyond challenge. As for the control group's
worthiness, I think that I've jumped through hoops to show why
it is valid control group, offering much more rationale than is
typical in a great many scientific studies.
Regards, Tom