Bad Science: The AIDS hoax (part II)
In the first instalment of this series I focused on the whale.to page devoted to what they call “The Aids Conspiracy“. I showed how the majority of the opinions and the “facts” presented in that page have been soundly refuted by science, and are totally invalid. This also illustrates that pseudoscientists would uncritically endorse any (expert?) opinion as long as it re-enforces their presumptions. But what about the evidence?

Ah, yes, the keyword: evidence. In this post we will explore how whale.to (in familiar pseudoscientific methodology) misrepresents scientific evidence in order to advance their agenda of eliminating vaccines (and probably all science-based medicine?). In the same AIDS page, whale.to has a sub-section entitled: “Cause of AIDS” with an item “AIDS and Vaccines” clearly implying that vaccines have either started or helped spread the AIDS virus. In that page there is a link to “Vaccinations and AIDS Citations” which presumably provides scientific evidence to back up the assertions made in the previous pages.

Or maybe not. Let’s have a look at the cited research, actually read what is available for each piece of research, and then draw our own conclusions instead of the ones whale.to feeds us! It is also worth noting that all cited research was published between 1983-1986 with only one exception published in 1992. Way to be accurate! Anyway, to the research (all emphasis in quotes is mine):
  • Scheier, R, Hepatitis vaccine: the Danger of AIDS Transmission, Z Hautkr, 1984 Apr 15; 59(8):502-506.

    From the abstract:
    The safety of the hepatitis B vaccine H-B- Vax derives from a very strict screening of plasma donors as well as an extensive production process consisting of several purification and three inactivation steps. During a follow up of about 20 000 vaccine recipients over a 7 year-period, no known occurrence of AIDS or other infectious diseases have been associated with the vaccine. Also no known case of AIDS occurred in a group of 200 000 persons at low risk vaccinated since 1981. The hepatitis B vaccine is highly recommended…
  • Macek, C, “AIDS Transmission: What about the Hepatitis B Vaccine?“, JAMA, 1983 Feb 11; 249(6):685-686.

    I could not find any information about this article.

  • NA, “The Risk of AIDS after Hepatitis Vaccination,” JAMA, 1985 May 24-31; 253(20):2960-2961.

    This is an anonymous article with no information available.

  • Taubman, L B, et al, “The Question of Possible Relationship Between Hepatitis B Vaccine and AIDS“, AM J Med, 1984 Apr; 76(4): A 59.

    This is merely a letter to the editor as opposed to published research, and I could not find any more information (without buying the article).

  • Kato, S et al, “Hepatitis B Vaccination and AIDS,” JAMA, 1985 Jul 5; 254(1):53.
    [...] evidence confirming the absence of AIDS transmission by this hepatitis B vaccine was stated to be the following: 1) The AIDS virus is specifically inactivated by the inactivation procedures used in the vaccine’s manufacture. 2) The vaccine contains no detectable AIDS virus nucleic acid sequence. 3) The serologic markers of infection with AIDS virus are not observed in vaccine recipients. In Japan, we studied Merck’s Heptavax-B (lot 2374) in 74 health care workers who had no history of hepatitis B infection and determined, in addition to the safety and antigenic potential of the vaccine, the percentage of T-cell and B-cell subsets (OKT3, OKT4, and OKT8), the OKT4/OKT8 ratio, and mitogenesis by phytohemagglutinin or concanavalin A at 3 and 9 months after the 1st vaccination. A group of unvaccinated, age-matched health care workers were used as controls. The Table provides a summary of the results. As shown therein, no difference from the control group was observed in any test item after 3 or 9 months. Follow-ups have been continued for longer than 9 months in some vaccinees, and there has been no change even after 20 months. From these observations, it can be inferred that there is little possibility of the hepatitis B vaccine made by Merck causing AIDS, based on the fact that no abnormality was observed in the T-cell phenotypes of the people who received the vaccine
  • Schwartz, AM, et al, “Hepatitis Vaccine and the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome“, 1983, JAMA, Oct: 99(4):567-568.

    No information available

  • Sacks, H S, et al, “Should the Risk of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome deter Hepatitis B Vaccination?” A Decision Analysis.” JAMA, 1984 Dec 28; 252(24): 3375-3377.
    We formulated a decision-analytic model that compares the risk of death from hepatitis B and AIDS in those vaccinated with the risk of death from hepatitis B alone in those who wait two years for a synthetic vaccine. For individuals with 5% annual risk of hepatitis B, the best current estimate is that vaccination now would save 25 lives per 100,000. The best current estimate of the rate of vaccine-induced AIDS is zero, and one can be 95% confident that the rate is less than eight per 100,000. The rate would have to be considerably higher before postponement of vaccination would be rational for those for whom vaccination has been recommended.
  • Papaevangelou, G et al, “Risk of AIDS in Recipients of Hepatitis B Vaccine“, NEJM, 1985 Feb 7; 312(6):376-377.

    No info available on this paper. However, another paper from the same research group, “Lack of antibodies to LAV/HTLV-III in hepatitis B vaccine recipients“, had this to say:
    There is no evidence up to now that the currently available plasma hepatitis B vaccine transmits the agent of AIDS. To support further the safety of this vaccine we examined 137 vaccinees for the presence of antibodies to LAV/HTLV-III. [...] Antibodies to LAV/HTLV-III were not detected in any of the sera examined, providing evidence for safety. We believe that these data increase the acceptance of hepatitis B vaccine.
  • Francis, DP, et al, “The Safety of the Hepatitis B Vaccine. Inactivation of the AIDS virus During Routine Manufacture“, JAMA, 1986 Aug 15; 256(7): 869-872.

    From the abstract:
    In the United States, one hepatitis B vaccine (Heptavax-B) has been licensed for the prevention of hepatitis B virus infections. Even though this vaccine has been shown to be highly effective and well tolerated in controlled trials and has been recommended for use in those at risk for acquiring infection by hepatitis B virus, many individuals have been reluctant to be immunized for fear of contracting acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). In this study, we demonstrate that each of the three inactivation steps used in the manufacture of Heptavax-B independently will inactivate the infectivity of high-titered preparations of the AIDS virus; recipients of the hepatitis B vaccine do not develop antibodies to the AIDS virus; the hepatitis B vaccine does not contain detectable levels of nucleic acids related to the AIDS virus. These observations clearly demonstrate that vaccination with the currently available hepatitis B vaccine poses no demonstrable risk for acquiring AIDS.
  • Schultz, TF, “Origin of AIDS,” Lancet, Mar 7, 1992, 339(8797):867.

    Could not get a hold of the paper. However, the subject of the origin of AIDS in relation to vaccines -especially the polio and hepatitis B vaccine, was discussed in detail in the previous instalment of this series.
You see from those citations where access is available, one can easily conclude that all the fearmongering originating from the whale.to website is unsubstantiated and can only do harm.

Furthermore, a pattern emerges: charlatans will cite scientific research, even if it refutes their position (!), with the hope that no one will notice. A list of scientific publications will mind-boggle the lay person who is not up to the task of searching for and reading medical research papers. What the whale.to people have done is to post anything that has the keywords “vaccines” and “AIDS” as evidence that vaccines cause AIDS! This is how Bad Science works…

Of course my goal is not to thoroughly debunk the whale.to website -this is relatively easy due to the utter nonsense one can find there, but also very time-consuming due to the huge amounts of such nonsense. My goal is simply to illustrate some of the techniques that pseudoscientists and charlatans are using in an effort to promote their favorite woo-woo. And the misrepresentation of science is one of their main weapons
4 Responses to this post
Thanks for a most enjoyable post. It’s a good example of a common technique: make up something you want the literature to say, then pretend that it does in the hope that very few people will (or can) bother to check the sources. The same pattern is seen in homeopaths and what they say about various meta-analyses
some of the references arn’t available anywhere, how do they even knoe what’s in there? they don’t even read them I think.
apgaylard thanks for the comment.

BTW, my post on homeopathic meta-analyses misrepresentation is already completed and will go live sometime within the week. So, you must be a psychic because there is no other scientific rational explanation :-)
“Even though this vaccine [hep B] has been shown to be highly effective and well tolerated in controlled trials … ”

Sir if you are truly interested in a scientific approach to “vaccination” Please follow this train of thought where it leads you.

The end point in the “vaccine” “testing” is almost always anti body count which evidence demonstrated has LITTLE to do with MUCH infectious disease. Bio-weapons are a notable exception. Never fear this base has been covered.

The disastrous long term results of “vaccination” are pushed under the rug by all the power of HHS and big pharma.

Thus it is very difficult to make a valid risk/reward judgement on “vaccination” Difficult for YOU. I have seen the results of “vaccination” are intended to be MUCH more awful than you can imagine.

If you want to stop or limit infectious disease you will concentrate on your innate immune system. Of course big pharma has NO intention of making you healthy. Where is the money in that?

Thanks Lou

The Pasteur Institute found that “98% of the immune responses triggered at the early stages of infection are non specific. These non specific responses had been observed following different infections by viruses, bacteria, parasites and fungi.” This means that natural immune system affords 98% of the early response to an infectious disease agent, while the adaptive or memory-based protective response that vaccination seeks to stimulate represents only 2% of early response. Pasteur Institute Press Release – Towards new vaccination strategies based on ‘non specific immunity’; August 1, 2000.

Children with agammaglobulinaemia have no capacity to produce antibodies after contracting zymotic diseases, but still recover from measles with long-lasting immunity. Burnet M.; Auto Immunity and Auto Immune Disease, M.T.P., London, England, 1973, Chapter 3.

A mid 20th century study on the relationship of diphtheria incidence to the presence of antibodies found no observable correlation between antibody count and onset of the disease. “The researchers found people who were highly resistant with extremely low antibody count, and people who developed the disease who had high antibody counts.” Report No. 272, British Medical Council, London, England, May, 1950.

A group of military recruits were immunized for Rubella, and uniformly demonstrated antibodies, however 80 percent of the recruits contracted the disease when later exposed to it. Similar results were demonstrated in a subsequent study conducted at an institution for the mentally disabled. Allan B.; Australian Journal of Medical Technology; Vol. 4, Nov. 1973, pp. 26 and 27

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Synopsis%20of%20Immunization%20Issues-1.pdf

http://healthyprotocols.com/2_vaccine_3.htm
Add a comment
Leave a comment
(Email required for authentication purposes only and will not be published. Please also note that if your comment contains links, profanity, or other sensitive content it might be held for moderation. In that case it will not appear until accepted by the administrator. Please do not post the same comment twice.)
Name *:

Email (not published) *:

URL:


Comment: (you may use HTML tags for styling)