Tag Archives: new york city

AIDS: The “Gay Plague” and THE MAN-MADE ORIGIN OF AIDS

Gay Vaccine Experiments And The American (Not African) Origin Of AIDS

By Alan Cantwell, MD

Ever since the AIDS epidemic became official in June 1981, there have been rumors that AIDS is a man-made disease. Although this theory has been discredited by “scientific consensus,” there is evidence linking the outbreak of this new disease to a vaccine experiment conducted on gay men in New York City, as well as in other U.S. cities, between 1978 and 1981.

The first epidemic cases of AIDS in America were uncovered exclusively in young, previously healthy, and mostly white gay men in Manhattan in 1979. The cause was unknown until 1984 when a virus, later named HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), was accepted as the infectious agent. How a sexually transmitted disease (STD), purportedly originating in Africa, was transferred into a so-called “gay disease” in New York City was left unexplained, except for preposterous stories like the gay Canadian airline steward Gaetan Dugas, who was demonized in the media and tabloids as “the man who brought AIDS to America.”

THE GAY VACCINE EXPERIMENTS BEFORE AIDS (1978-1981)

Beginning in 1974, workers in a bloodmobile provided by the New York Blood Center in Manhattan began soliciting 8, 906 gay men for a hepatitis B vaccine research study (Koblin et al, 1992). Over the next few years more that 10,000 blood samples were donated by gays willing to participate in the development of a vaccine that might prevent hepatitis B. This viral disease was an STD disproportionately affecting sexually-active homosexuals.

The AIDS epidemic in the U.S. directly traces back to this government-sponsored vaccine experiment! Eventually, 1,083 gay men were recruited to be injected with an experimental hepatitis B vaccine at the New York Blood Center. In the months before the actual experiment began, the vaccine underwent preliminary testing for safety and immune response on two hundred physicians at New York Medical Center, as well as on twenty-eight employees of Merck & Co, which made the vaccine.

The first group of men in the actual trial were inoculated in November 1978. The experiment was confidential. Each man was given an anonymous identification number, which would be the only way they could be identified by the investigators. Each man got an initial dose of vaccine, then a repeat one month after, and a final inoculation six months later. All were asked to donate blood samples for two years after the three injections. Over a period of months, all 1,083 men would be injected. Half the men were given the experimental vaccine; the other half would serve as the control group and were given useless placebo injections. In this double-blind study, neither the men nor the investigators knew who was getting the vaccine or the placebo.

This experiment ended in September 1980. The success rate in preventing hepatitis B in the group receiving the vaccine was 92.3%. Additional experimental hep B vaccine trials, all using gay men as the guinea pig, were conducted in 1979 and 1980 in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver and St. Louis.

In May 1981, the men in the placebo group (who did not receive the vaccine) at the Blood Center were offered a chance to take the vaccine. As a result, 270 men were inoculated with the series of three shots and were asked to donate additional blood samples for two more years. Because men in the vaccine-recipient group and the placebo group were now both inoculated with the vaccine, it would no longer be possible to compare the two groups in terms of future HIV rates. Because the experiment was confidential and anonymous, the fate of the individual men in terms of acquiring HIV/AIDS in the future, could never be ascertained. In June 1981, after 41 cases of a new disease in homosexuals were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta (CDC), the AIDS epidemic became official.

THE “GAY PLAGUE” BEGINS IN MANHATTAN IN 1979

The first few cases of a new disease characterized by immunodeficiency, cancer and a previously rare form of pneumonia in young gay men, were uncovered in Manhattan in 1979. By the end of 1981 there were 160 cumulative cases from New York City; a decade later, 9,000 cases had been reported in NYC. The early cases were termed “gay related immune deficiency disease,” or GRID, for short. Privately, it was called “the gay plague,” with homosexuals dying from “gay cancer” in the form of Kaposi’s sarcoma, and/or a rapidly fatal “gay pneumonia” caused by a yeast-like fungus.

By the end of 1979, 6.6% of 378 men who had been “hepatitis B trial participants” or who had donated blood in the experiment at the Center were already HIV- positive. By 1981, it was 20%! (This was at a time when the African AIDS epidemic was unknown.) By 1984 over 40% of the trial participants were HIV-positive (Stevens et al, 1986). These infection rates were determined in 1985 when the stored gay blood samples were retested for HIV.

A different (non-vaccine) hepatitis B study, conducted from 1978 to 1980 at the San Francisco City Clinic, recruited a cohort of 6,705 homosexuals. By 1982, 41% of all reported AIDS cases in S.F. were from this cohort. By 1989, 75% of the cohort was infected with HIV-and 1,479 had developed AIDS (Rutherford et al, 1990). Activist Tom Keske has posted an essay on his website entitled: “Was AIDS in the U.S. started intentionally?” He also provides an incriminating statistical analysis linking the AIDS outbreak in San Francisco to hepatitis B vaccine experiments conducted in that city.

In 1984, the CDC was apparently oblivious to the extremely high rate of HIV/AIDS infection in gay men who participated in the hepatitis experiments and studies, particularly at a time when the African AIDS epidemic was still largely unknown. In its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, dated Dec 14, 1984, the agency simply concluded the hepatitis B vaccine was safe-and that “epidemiologic monitoring of AIDS cases and high-risk groups confirms the lack of AIDS transmission.” When later studies revealed the high incidence of HIV in these men, as noted above, there was no official comment by the CDC.

To my knowledge, the CDC never tested the vaccine given to the men at the NY Blood center; and this CDC 1984 report is often cited to refute any connection between gay experiments and the AIDS outbreak. New York City quickly became the epicenter for the American epidemic, and has remained so to this day, with more that 100,000 New Yorkers living with HIV/AIDS.


SIMIAN VIRUSES AND GAY VACCINE EXPERIMENTS

According to Luc Montagnier in his book “Virus” (1999), the African AIDS epidemic did not begin until the Autumn of 1982 at the earliest. There is also no epidemiologic or sexual connection between gay cases and African AIDS cases.

Was HIV introduced into gay men via a contaminated vaccine? HIV is not the first simian (i.e., monkey or chimp) virus to infect mankind. Simian virus-40 (SV40) is a cancer-causing green monkey virus that contaminated the polio vaccine, and was injected into millions of people worldwide beginning in the 1950s. SV40 was also used extensively in animals to induce cancer tumors conducted as part of the largely forgotten Special Virus Cancer Program (1964-1980). For details of this Program, see my Internet article entitled ‘Blaming gays, blacks, and chimps for AIDS.’

There are strong connections between simian viruses and the experimental hep B vaccine, the gay participants, and the outbreak of AIDS. The vaccine given to gays was designed by Maurice Hilleman of Merck; and was “developed” by repeatedly injecting it into chimpanzees, as part of the safety testing of the vaccine. Could a chimp HIV-like virus have been transferred to the vaccine during the 65-week manufacturing process?

Humans and chimps have 99% of their active genetic material in common. As a result, chimps are used extensively in medical research. In 1974 veterinarians produced an AIDS-like disease in chimps by taking newborn chimps away from their mothers and feeding them virus-infected cow’s milk. As a result of this interspecies transfer of virus, the chimps died of immunodeficiency, leukemia, and pneumocystis pneumonia, later known as the “gay pneumonia” of AIDS (McClure et al, 1974). Previously, leukemia had never been observed in chimps.

Also in 1974 the New York Blood Center established Vilab II, a little-publicized chimp research lab in Robertsville, Liberia, West Africa. It contained captive chimps, all of which were purposely infected with hepatitis. In 1978 Vilab began to release some chimps back into the wild and onto several islands. The Blood Center announced the closure of the lab in 2006 and the end to chimp research. Alfred Prince, a hepatitis researcher and virologist at the Blood Center, was also the Director of Vilab from 1975 to 2000.

Maurice Hilleman was well aware of simian viruses contaminating vaccines, having personally discovered SV40 in 1960 in polio vaccines. In a youtube.com video entitled “Merck chief brings HIV/AIDS to America, ” posted by prolific AIDS origin researcher Leonard G Horowitz, Hilleman is recorded telling his colleagues, “I brought African greens [monkeys] in. I didn’t know we were importing AIDS virus at the time [i.e., between 1970-1974]. His colleagues are heard laughing. Someone says, “It was you who introduced AIDS virus in.” This shocking interview, conducted by Edward Shorter for WGBH public television, was cut from the TV documentary, based on Shorter’s book “The Health Century” (1987), due to liability issues, undoubtedly reflecting poorly on Merck where the vaccine for gays was developed. Hilleman’s assertion gives credence to the “conspiratorial” view that the most likely source of an AIDS-causing simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) virus was from a laboratory, and not from the wilds of Africa.

The close timeline between the hepatitis B vaccine trials, as well as the high incidence of HIV/AIDS in the participants, and the outbreak of the “gay plague” can hardly be denied. There are few sources, outside of medical journal reports, that reveal details of the experiment. The best source is June Goodfield’s “Quest for the Killers” (1985), in a chapter entitled ‘Vaccine on trial.’ She emphasizes the dangerous aspects of the vaccine experiment, due to the pooling of the blood, as well as the concern regarding possible contamination of the vaccine. Hers is the only source revealing that some of the vaccine was made by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). “Was something wrong with the vaccine, possibly contamination? This was no theoretical fear, contamination having been suspected in one vaccine batch made by the National Institutes of Health, though never in Merck’s.”

THE SIMIAN VIRUS ORIGIN OF HIV

Determining the simian ancestry of HIV is not the same as determining the origin of the AIDS epidemic in America. HIV is emphatically a “new virus” in humans, although its origin in simians may be ancient. The American AIDS epidemic clearly began in the late 1970s. The purported African origin of American AIDS is largely based on the genealogy of the AIDS virus in Africa. I could never understand why scientists never looked for a simian ancestor of HIV in the various primate virus labs and primate colonies in the U.S.

The simian “roots” of HIV depend on who is doing the genetic analysis. Some researchers claim that HIV has been circulating in humans since the 1930s, others date it back a century or more. A new “phylo-geographic” study suggests monkey SIVs are ancient and date back 32,000 to 75,000 years (Worobey et al, 2010).

The public was first told that HIV originated in Africa in green monkeys. This changed in 1999 when a SIV found in chimpanzees was widely accepted as the closest ancestor virus of HIV (Gao et al, 1999). Four years later, geneticists reversed themselves again, claiming HIV “didn’t start its life in chimps” but arose through hybridization of two monkey strains of SIV that recombined in the chimpanzee host (Bailes et al, 2003). In other words, the ancestors of HIV were a mix of monkey immunodeficiency viruses transferred into chimps, which subsequently recombined to form a new hybrid virus with mixed genetic material. By the way, chimps are considered apes, have bigger bodies than monkeys, and are most closely related to humans. Monkeys have tails and are structurally closer to four-legged animals like cats and dogs.

Lost in all this conflicting genetic mumbo-jumbo, that few people can comprehend (including myself), was the fact that extensive mixing of simian viruses and the creation of hybrid viruses was going on for years in labs around the world in the years immediately preceding AIDS. This, in fact, is the basis of the AIDS “conspiracy theory,” which proposes that the ancestor of HIV most likely originated in animal species transfer experiments in a virus laboratory. Yet this explanation is never considered by scientists. These genetic studies of HIV origin, widely reported in the major media, continue to reinforce the public perception that HIV/AIDS started in Africa.

There is no attempt made here to fully explain the origin of the horrible outbreak of AIDS in Africa beginning around 1983. This will up to future medical historians to unravel. Suffice it to say that sub-Saharan Africa has been the testing ground for pharmaceuticals and vaccines for many decades, and for massive vaccine programs with reuse of needles which could also spread HIV from person to person.

In “AIDS and the Doctors of Death” (1988), I mentioned a London Times explosive front page article connecting AIDS to extensive vaccine programs in Africa, and entitled “Smallpox vaccine triggered AIDS virus” (May 11, 1987). Robert Gallo, the co-discoverer of HIV, was quoted as saying, “The link between the WHO program and the epidemic is an interesting and important hypothesis. I cannot say it actually happened, but I have been saying for some years that the use of live vaccines such as that used for smallpox can activate a dormant infection such as HIV.” The full Times story never appeared in the major media in the U.S., but is available online.

Researchers have known for a long time that the particular strain of HIV that infected American gays is “subtype B.” The prevalent strains in Africa are different, again suggesting that American AIDS cases did not come from Africa cases. Unlike some strains in Africa, which date back to the 1930s, a recent study by Perez-Losada at al (2010), indicates “subtype B” is quite new, dating back to around 1968, a decade before the hep B experiment. Max Essex claims the American B strain has an affinity for anal tissue and is more easily transmitted by homosexual contact and intravenous drug use, whereas the HIV subtypes in Africa tend to fuel heterosexual epidemics via a vaginal mucosal route.

THE LAB ORIGIN OF HIV IN AMERICA

Hilleman’s hepatitis B vaccine was intentionally made from the pooled blood of 300 highly sexually-active gay and intravenous drug abusers in Manhattan. These men were the carriers of the hepatitis virus Hilleman required to manufacture his vaccine. As mentioned, the vaccine was developed in chimps, and took 65 weeks to make. His vaccine brew was collected in 1977. The specific year is important because there are no reports of AIDS cases at that time; and no stored American blood testing positive for HIV before that year.

In “Vaccinated” (2007) Paul Offit, a pediatrician and vaccine developer who works for Merck, theorizes that although “HIV was likely present in the blood from which he made early preparations of his vaccine, Hilleman’s choice of pepsin, urea, and formaldehyde had completely destroyed it.”

In “Vaccinated,” Offit is critical of my AIDS origin research. He writes, “The publisher of Alan Cantwell’s book, Aries Rising Press, was founded by Cantwell himself to promote his uninformed views on the origin of the AIDS epidemic.” Offit claims the American blood supply was “heavily contaminated” with HIV in the mid-1970s. He offers no documentation for this statement, nor are there any studies (or epidemic AIDS cases) which document this.

The earliest HIV-positive blood specimens in the American epidemic were uncovered in 1978-they are those deposited into the Blood Center by gay participants of the hep B experiment. There is no record of any other stored blood in the U.S testing positive for HIV, with one exception. According to “Virus Hunters of the CDC” (1996), author Joseph McCormick states six hundred blood specimens from Zaire, Africa, were sent to the CDC in 1976 during the Ebola virus outbreak. When re-tested in the mid-1980s for HIV, five of the specimens were positive. One has to wonder if other labs in the U.S were also harboring HIV-infected African blood used in animal (or human) research.

Unlike Offit, I have never promoted the idea that HIV was contained in Hilleman’s blood brew in 1977. Yet Offit insists HIV first entered the U.S. a few years before Hilleman began working on his vaccine. He notes Hilleman would be “the first (and last) to use human blood to make a vaccine. He didn’t know until years later that the blood was heavily contaminated with HIV.”

Offit makes no mention of Hilleman importing HIV/AIDS via his monkeys and chimps, nor does he cite the 20% HIV infection rate of the men who participated in the trial at the Blood Center in 1981. He simply assures us the vaccine given to gay men was safe and free of HIV.

UNETHICAL MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION

The development of a hepatitis B vaccine has a dark history. Less than a decade before the gay experiment, sixty mentally retarded children at Willowbrook State School, on Staten Island, NY, were fed live hepatitis B virus. In another experiment, the serum from a patient with hepatitis B was injected intravenously into 25 retarded children with dire results. They sickened, some severely, and turned yellow with jaundice. According to Hilleman, “They were the most unethical medical experiments ever performed in children in the Unites States.”

It is indeed shameful to read the history of covert human experimentation over the past decades, which likely continues up to the present. Most appalling were “the human radiation experiments” of the Cold War era affecting millions of unsuspecting Americans, and extending into the mid-1970s. For all the morbid details, google: human medical experimentation.

I will mention only one recent revelation (2010) uncovered by Susan Reverby, quite by accident, while researching the notorious Tuskegee Syphilis study. According to the Wikipedia entry, “In a 1946 to 1948 study in Guatemala, U.S. researchers used prostitutes to infect prison inmates, insane asylum patients, and Guatemalan soldiers with syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases, in order to test the effectiveness of penicillin in treating sexually transmitted diseases. They later tried infecting people with “direct inoculations made from syphilis bacteria poured into the men’s penises and on forearms and faces that were slightly abraded . . . or in a few cases through spinal punctures. The study was sponsored by the U.S. Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health and the Pan American Health Sanitary Bureau (now the World Health Organization’s Pan American Health Organization) and the Guatemalan government.

Further details of the experiment that recruited 5,500 people and infected 1,300 people (including orphaned children) with sexually transmitted diseases were released on August 30, 2011. In one instance, a dying woman was deliberately infected with gonorrhea bacteria in her eyes and elsewhere. Seven women with epilepsy were injected with syphilis germs into the back of the spine, resulting in bacterial meningitis in all cases. Eighty-three people died. The U.S. Public Health Service is the former name of the CDC. The fact that this government study was initiated by both the CDC and the NIH, the two leading and most prestigious health organizations in America, is chilling.

When asked about the Guatemala experiment, Harold Jaffe of the CDC was quoted as saying: “Are there other stories that haven’t come to light? We don’t want to feed on the paranoia in the media, for example, of biological warfare, or AIDS as a cooked-up infection in a foreign country, but stories like this have to remind people of these stories” (‘Presidential panel slams 1940s Guatemalan STD study,’ by Louisa Kasdon, posted on the BU.edu website, Aug 31, 2011). Jaffe has been the top officer at the CDC covering AIDS since the very beginning. However, this is the first time I ever heard a CDC official blaming AIDS on a “cooked-up infection in a foreign country.”

SIMIAN VIRUSES AND VACCINES

Vaccines are big business with worldwide sales of 25 billion; and AIDS has spawned a huge industry as well. A CBS news report (Jan 8, 2010) declared: “Got AIDS? Lifetime cost: $618,900.”

I am not anti-vaccine, although I would like to know exactly how a vaccine is produced-from start to finish-before it is injected into me. And such knowledge is impossible to obtain, due to proprietary concerns of the manufacturers. Ordinarily, I decline vaccines unless absolutely necessary. I stopped taking yearly flu shots in 1991 when I read in The New York Times that some people were testing HIV-positive after injection with the “Beijing flu” shot that year. This was deemed to be a false-positive reaction, but the CDC was not sure what was causing the peculiar result.

Childhood vaccinations are necessary, of course, to prevent certain diseases. And more and more pediatricians are refusing to treat children whose parents refuse to vaccinate them according to the prescribed schedule, which includes 11 vaccines, and as many as 20 shots by 2 years of age (Offit et al, 2002). For some of my personal negative views on vaccines, see ‘Vexing over vaccines’ on the net.

For anyone who thinks that vaccine makers are always your friend, I would recommend “The Virus and the Vaccine: The True Story of a Cancer-Causing Monkey Virus, Contaminated Polio Vaccine, and the Millions of Americans Exposed” by Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher (2004). They explore the history of the polio vaccine, the contamination problems with SV40 , the ensuing vaccine-related cancer problems, and the government’s cover-up of the problem over the past three decades. I discovered that federal regulations require only that vaccine manufacturers screen for viruses by observing the effects of viruses on tissue cell cultures, as viewed with an ordinary light microscope. This was surprising to me because viruses are too small to be seen microscopically. Thus, vaccines are not directly tested for virus contamination, but are tested indirectly with a light microscope. Apparently virus contamination of vaccine lots is suspected only if cells (viewed in the light microscope) undergo evidence of viral infection. If a contaminating virus in a vaccine has no effect on cells, this testing procedure would obviously be ineffective.

When the gay experiments ended in 1981, HIV was already in the nation’s blood supply. And there was no way to test for it. Within a year, the disease was no longer confined to male homosexuals. It was clearly an STD that could also be transmitted by body fluids and by blood transfusion. In 1982 the first AIDS cases in blood transfusion recipients and hemophiliacs were recorded.

So why were gay men the only sexually-active Americans originally infected with HIV? In my view, the most likely explanation is the vaccine was contaminated with an SIV that escaped detection during the long and dangerous manufacturing process, which included repeated safety test in chimpanzees. An alternate explanation is that a laboratory-derived SIV was introduced deliberately as a genocidal agent against gay people that would eventually spread to the “general population.” In other words, a covert Guatemala-type STD experiment using gays as guinea pigs.

Sometimes, despite great care in the manufacturing process, a virus will slip through and wreak havoc. Such was the case with Cutter Laboratories in Berkeley, California, in 1957 with their polio vaccine that was accidentally contaminated with a live, virulent polio virus. The result was 200,000 infected people. Seventy thousand people became ill; 200 were permanently paralyzed; and 10 died, according to Offit’s “The Cutter Incident” (2005).

Once HIV was seeded into gays, it could easily spread sexually and through body fluids. A decade before the epidemic, in a lab accident involving green monkeys in 1967, a highly dangerous simian hemorrhagic virus infected 31 workers in a vaccine facility in Marburg, Germany, resulting in 7 deaths. In several instances, the virus was transferred to sexual partners. Four cases were acquired by hospital personnel caring for victims. Infection in these instances most probably was incurred through contact with the patients’ blood (Luby and Sanders, 1969).

Since 1984, gay men have been excluded from donating blood. This policy includes any man who has had sex with another man since 1977. This was the year Hilleman began work on his vaccine made from pooled blood. This also is the “accepted” year when HIV first entered the nation’s blood supply, although the source of this SIV has never been determined. However, the most likely source was close by- in primates held in laboratories and primate centers. Or in African blood samples, like those stored at the CDC.

THE MAN-MADE ORIGIN OF AIDS

There is a great deal of evidence pointing to AIDS as a man-made disease on the Internet, but the theory is routinely pooh-poohed as paranoia and conspiracy theory. See the Wikipedia page entitled ‘Discredited AIDS origin theories.’ However, it is fact that there was fear concerning the safety of the hepatitis B vaccine. When the commercial vaccine made by Abbott Laboratories became available to the public, it was unpopular. Many health professionals refused the vaccine because it was made from pooled gay blood; and they were afraid the vaccine could transmit AIDS. As a result, a new vaccine was eventually engineered using yeast cells instead of human blood.

Every African-American has heard the rumor that AIDS was engineered to kill off the black race. Thirty percent of blacks in New York City polled by The New York Times (October 29, 1990) actually believed that AIDS might be an ethno-specific bio-weapon designed in a laboratory to wipe them out.

George W Merck, president of Merck during World War 2, was America’s biological weapons industry director. According to Leonard Horowitz’s, New York University Medical Center was listed among the top biological weapons contracting labs by 1969. The NY Blood Center is affiliated with NYUMC. In 1971 a large part of the Army’s biological warfare unit at Fort Detrick was transferred over to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) by president Richard Nixon. As a result, bio-warfare experimentation went under cover at the NCI, which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

As noted, Goodfield mentions that the NIH made part of the hep B vaccine used on gays, and contamination was suspected. In his later years, Hilleman himself wrote extensive articles on biological warfare, convinced that vaccines could be developed to protect people against bioterrorism.

In the Spring of 1986, Robert Strecker, was promoting his view of AIDS as a “bio-attack” against humanity. He briefly received negative media attention in TIME magazine (‘Infectious propaganda’, November 17, 1986). When I asked how it was possible for AIDS to start as a purely gay disease, when such an event was biologically improbable, he told me: “Because they put it there. Do you recall the hepatitis B vaccine trials in gay men? That’s where the virus was introduced.”

After a quarter century of study, Strecker’s explanation still makes more sense to me that any other theory of AIDS origin. Ridiculous stories like “Patient Zero” and a handful of suspected “old cases” of so-called AIDS from the 1950s and 60s were sensationalized by the media in an attempt to show that AIDS existed long before the actual epidemic. Indeed, very rare cases of Kaposi’s sarcoma (“gay cancer”) and pneumocystis pneumonia have always existed, but never in epidemic form, nor as an STD. In my view, these reports reeked of misinformation and disinformation; and they served to obfuscate the real origin connected to government experiments conducted on gay men.

Despite my intense interest in this, I have discovered over the past three decades that most people are not interested in AIDS and where it came from. The idea of man-made AIDS, I suspect, is simply too painful for people to consider. In essence, the subject is taboo. However, it seems to me that after 25 million AIDS deaths worldwide, and over 500,000 dead Americans, that some better explanation is required than merely blaming a “species jumping” monkey virus in the African jungle-or gay sex.

This was most evident in April, 2008, when the outspoken Reverend Jeremiah Wright accused the government of inventing the AIDS virus as a genocide program against people of color. As the spiritual advisor to Barack Obama, Wright almost derailed Obama’s run for the presidency. The future president quickly disassociated himself from his former pastor, and the accusation was quickly squelched by the major media without discussion. Wright had read Horowitz’s book on man-made AIDS, “Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola” (1996). He had carefully studied the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study, and he bluntly told the media. “I believe our government is capable of doing anything.”

The rumor that AIDS is a man-made disease will never go away. The reason is simple: It is the most logical explanation of how and why the AIDS epidemic first erupted as the “gay plague” among the most hated minority in America.

————–

Alan Cantwell, MD, writes frequently about the origin of AIDS. He is the author of “AIDS & the Doctors of Death” and “Queer Blood”; both published by Aries Rising Press, PO Box 29532, Los Angeles, CA 90029. His books are available from Amazon.com and through ariesrisingpress.com

SOURCE

Does Sex Ed Undermine Parental Rights?

Does Sex Ed Undermine Parental Rights?

By ROBERT P. GEORGE and MELISSA MOSCHELLA

IMAGINE you have a 10- or 11-year-old child, just entering a public middle school. How would you feel if, as part of a class ostensibly about the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, he and his classmates were given “risk cards” that graphically named a variety of solitary and mutual sex acts? Or if, in another lesson, he was encouraged to disregard what you told him about sex, and to rely instead on teachers and health clinic staff members?

That prospect would horrify most parents. But such lessons are part of a middle-school curriculum that Dennis M. Walcott, the New York City schools chancellor, has recommended for his system’s newly mandated sex-education classes. There is a parental “opt out,” but it is very limited, covering classes on contraception and birth control.

Observers can quarrel about the extent to which what is being mandated is an effect, or a contributing cause, of the sexualization of children in our society at younger ages. But no one can plausibly claim that teaching middle-schoolers about mutual masturbation is “neutral” between competing views of morality; the idea of “value free” sex education was exploded as a myth long ago. The effect of such lessons is as much to promote a certain sexual ideology among the young as it is to protect their health.

But beyond rival moral visions, the new policy raises a deeper issue: Should the government force parents — at least those not rich enough to afford private schooling — to send their children to classes that may contradict their moral and religious values on matters of intimacy and personal conduct?

Liberals and conservatives alike should say no. Such policies violate parents’ rights, whether they are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or of no religion at all. To see why, we need to think carefully about the parent-child relationship that gives rise to the duties that parental rights serve and protect.

Parents are responsible for bringing new people into the world, bound to them by blood and, ordinarily, deep feeling. These people are incapable of developing their uniquely human capacities on their own, giving parents an obligation to their children and to society to help them reach maturity — one that requires attending not only to children’s physical and emotional needs, but their intellectual and moral growth as well.

Parenting, especially in moral and religious matters, is very important and highly personal: while parents enlist others’ help in this task, the task is theirs. They are ultimately responsible for their children’s intellectual and moral maturity, so within broad limits they must be free to educate their children, especially on the deepest matters, as they judge best. This is why parental rights are so important: they provide a zone of sovereignty, a moral space to fulfill their obligations according to their consciences.

The right to parent is rather like the right to exercise one’s religion. Like parental duties, religious duties are serious and highly personal. This is why, absent the most serious reasons, it would be a grave violation of individual rights if the state prevented people from honoring what they regarded as their religious obligations. To subject children to indoctrination in deeply personal matters against their parents’ consciences is no less a violation than forcing Muslim parents to send their children to a Catholic Mass.

True, the state needs to protect children from abuse and neglect. It is also true that the state has a legitimate interest in reducing teenage pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. But it is not abuse or neglect to protect the innocence of preteenage children or to teach one’s children more conservative, as opposed to more liberal, moral values. Nor is it wrong or unreasonable to limit the state’s control over what one’s children learn and think about sensitive issues of morality. On the contrary, that is just what is required if parents are to fulfill their duties and exercise their legitimate rights.

Unless a broader parental opt out is added, New York City’s new policies will continue to usurp parents’ just (and constitutionally recognized) authority. Turning a classroom into a mandatory catechism lesson for a contested ideology is a serious violation of parental rights, and citizens of every ideological hue should stand up and oppose it.

Robert P. George is a professor of politics at Princeton and the founder of the American Principles Project. Melissa Moschella is a doctoral candidate in political theory at Princeton.

SOURCE

Beware the U.S. ‘day of rage’ September 17

In 1969 Leftwing domestic terrorist William ‘Bill’ Ayers, head of the group known as ‘the Weathermen,’ staged the ‘days of rage’ in Chicago during which acts of violence, mayhem, and destruction of property were conducted as a means by which Progressive extremists would not only protest American capitalism and the Viet Nam War but so disrupt the country that its economic and social system would crumble and be replaced by a Marxist and pacifistic model.

Custom Search

The fact that by definition an anti-war movement along with its promotion of pacifism disavows all violence for any purpose, good or bad, was totally lost on this gang of extremist militants who were more interested in pushing a Marxist, anti-Capitalist agenda than portraying a pacifistic mindset. Despite their many claims of ‘peaceful protest and non-violent civil disobedience,’ the Weathermen went on a rampage during which they ran wild in the streets wearing helmets, military gear, and wielding baseball bats and other weapons. All symbols of wealth and power were attacked, including parked cars, the apartments and property of the affluent, police officers, and ‘rich’ innocent bystanders.

Ayers called on the Marxist minions to kill their parents. By the end of the melee 400 militants were arrested and 60 victims were injured, some seriously. The group had also caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to property.

By 1970 the Weathermen turned even more violent as they began to blow up buildings with bombs. Bombs were detonated in the U.S. Capitol Building, the Pentagon, and the New York City Police Headquarters, among others. The violence resulted in several deaths, including that of at least 2 police officers. To this day, neither Bill Ayers, nor his wife and co-domestic terrorist Bernadine Dohrn, have ever expressed the slightest hint of remorse for their actions. To the contrary, they have stated more than once that they would do it all over again and are sorry that they did not do even more.

On September 17 of this year yet another ‘day of rage’ is scheduled to occur in New York City on Wall Street, as once again the militant Marxist Progressives attempt to shut down the stock market and bring to ruin several large firms. The major difference between the days of rage of 1969 and the day of rage this September 17 is that today the Leftwing extremists have friends in very high places within the government. And the key players in this year’s display of mayhem have a direct connection with those who staged the first event in 1969.

The usual suspects are involved–the union SEIU, former directors of ACORN, and other Leftist organizations that have come to the forefront of attention since the Presidential election of 2008. But as a special report published in 2003 in the Boston Globe indicates, the Weathermen are still active and do most of their work underground, well out of the public eye. Many believe that Ayers, Dohrn, Kathy Boudin, and other key players in the Weathermen are helping fuel the tensions leading to the various days of rage around the world.

For example, it is known that Ayers, Dohrn, and Jodi Evans of Code Pink form the driving force behind the so-called ‘Peace Flotilla’ that is aimed at breaching Israel’s blockade of Gaza and provoking attacks. It is also curious to note that the flotilla’s activities closely preceded the so-called Arab Spring and days of rage throughout the Middle East as extremists used the ruse of ‘democratic protests’ to oust dictators and usher in their own form of totalitarianism called ‘Sharia Law.’ Ayers is the original purveyor of the ‘days of rage’–the originator and guru of the movement. The fact that these types of events are being staged all over the world, using the same name, is no coincidence.

Further, in spite of the claim that the gathering on Wall Street is to be ‘peaceful,’ one of the event’s organizers stated in a memo to volunteers that they intend to make the event the ‘U.S. Tahrir Square’–referring to the weeks of protests involving hundreds of thousands in Cairo, Egypt:

On September 17, we want to see 20,000 people flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months. Once there, we shall incessantly repeat our one simple demand until Barack Obama capitulates.

…there is a very real danger that if we naively put our cards on the table and rally around the “overthrow of capitalism” or some equally outworn utopian slogan, then our Tahrir moment will quickly fizzle into another inconsequential ultra-lefty spectacle soon forgotten. But if we have the cunning to come up with a deceptively simple Trojan Horse demand…

See you on Wall St. Sept 17. Bring Tent.

Thus, as in 1968 the group intends to be deceptive in hiding its stated goals and tactics.

And that is not all.

Not only do the militants plan to converge on Wall Street but they intend to conduct similar disruptive and potentially violent events on the same day in multiple cities around the world, including Tokyo, London, Frankfurt, Madrid, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Sidney, and Toronto.

How will the Obama Administration respond to the coordinated, protracted ‘sit ins’ to be staged by Progressives in the nation’s most important financial hub? No one can know for sure. But we do know that Barack Obama and those closest to him have long-standing, close relationships with the key players–SEIU, ACORN, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Jodi Evans, and other Leftwing extremist activists and groups.


SOURCE