Is it any wonder that not every one agrees with the official hullabaloo on HIV/AIDS?

Is it any wonder why countless scientists, research scholars and other intellectuals say that AIDS statistics are hopelessly overestimated, while others point to the inseparable unreliability of the standard tests used to ascertain the status of “HIV-positive”?

Why does the mythical “HIV-induced AIDS plague” in the Third World generate such huge sums of cash from Western relief organizations?

Why the European Union? Why the World Bank? And most importantly, why our tiny Republic of Trinidad and Tobago?

Maybe you’d wish to delve further still, into the detailed science of this, sad to say, apparently non-salient issue.
Electron microscopy anyone? This exercise as it is proven, “reveals retrovirus-like particles in 90% of enlarged lymph nodes from supposed ‘AIDS patients’, but the identical particles can be found in 90% of enlarged lymph nodes from patients who do not have AIDS and are not at risk from developing AIDS”. Therefore, if the particles seen in ‘AIDS patients’ are, as the AIDS experts persuade, HIV, what are the particles seen in patients who are not at risk?

A bit simpler did you say?
How about the scientifically proven fact of there existing over sixty different medical conditions including: malnutrition, M.S., measles, influenza and syphilis which can trigger a ‘HIV-positive’ diagnosis?
How about the even more lucid proven fact of pregnancy itself generating a positive diagnosis?

Furthermore, how about the life terminating Retrovir (AZT) drug which was withdrawn from American Health Institutions for being too toxic, with effects including: cancer, hepatitis, dementia, seizures, anxiety, impotence, leukopaenia, severe nausea and ataxia being prescribed to Third World ‘AIDS patients’?

Simpler still?
How about Hoover Institute researcher Tom Bethel’s assertion: “AIDS is not a disease at all - it is a government program”?
Does this provocative conclusion mark time for our awakening and undivided attention to the unrivalled might of this our own spiraling crisis?

When Dr. Charles Geshekter PhD, a three-time Fulbright scholar who has served as an advisor to the UN State Department and several African governments made his 15th trip to Africa in 1999 to find out more about the alleged AIDS epidemic, he uncovered “that a variety of old sicknesses have been reclassified and dressed up as HIV/AIDS” . Even more shocking, was the finding that post mortems were seldom performed in Africa to determine the actual cause of death, and “verbal autopsies” were widely used because of death certificates being rarely issued.

He also found that “the total cumulative number of AIDS cases reported in Africa since 1982, when AIDS record-keeping began, was 794,444 - a number starkly at odds with the latest scare figures, which claimed 2.3 million AIDS deaths throughout Africa for 1999 alone.

Do we care enough to simply pose questions about various medical practices that have been implemented to diagnose our own citizens with HIV/AIDS? Or simpler yet, to even question the sources of all published statistical records containing swelling numbers of so-called 'AIDS sufferers' in our country?

It is a matter of most urgency, some would argue, a problem to be curbed before being outwitted of control.
But are we in control? Do we know of our programme’s initiation or initiator(s)?

After Dr Geshekter presented his findings to the HIV/AIDS Crisis Management Committee of Swaziland in mid-December 1999, an attorney named Teresa Mlangeni acknowledged that she could easily see how malnutrition, tuberculosis, malaria and other parasitic infections - not sexual behaviour - were making her fellow Swazis ill. But on the contrary, other committee members confided that if they voiced public doubts, they risked losing their international funding.

Do we have such tight-lipped committee members in office among us? Does this mean that they in question put their own funding at risk if they question AIDS in Trinidad and Tobago? And if so, are they forced to keep it zipped?

Isn’t it interesting that no sooner after the appointment of American based HIV/AIDS Consultant to the Tobago House of Assembly, Dr Raymond Noel, came mountainous government and foreign monetary contributions in the form of grants, loans and resources for the running of the island's ‘roaming clinic’?

And what about medication? Surely, we must have expected that to follow. Didn’t we?
Do we know anything about our sources of supply? Where our imported drugs are manufactured, what it contains, and how much of our ‘great funding’ is used to pay for it?

Do we have our own appointed senior pharmacologists, medicine consultants and other science personnel in supervisory and administrative positions, to enforce and ensure the adherence of strict medical codes of practice stipulated by law?

In an investigative report on July 29th 1999, The Express (of London) revealed how a shipment of 29 tons of blood plasma, infected with HIV, was stopped at a port in Italy. Its destination - the ‘Third World’. Could Trinidad and Tobago have been one of its proposed ports for discharge? After all, it has been uncovered that “there is a thriving traffic in these products which are sold cheaply to the Third World countries where doctors are unaware of the fact that they are infected with HIV”.
Are our doctors aware? And more significantly, are they briefed? Or is information retained?

Is it not the duty of the country’s investigative and reporting media, assisted by all relative Government officials with reasonable cause, to scrutinize, uncover and reveal all illicit programmes and operations, influenced and conducted both by foreign and national bodies if they sensed any?

In fact, are we being bold enough to imply that such exercises may be of existence within the relentless HIV/AIDS campaign in Trinidad and Tobago?

Moreover, should this presumption be actioned, proven and disclosed as fact, what then?
Would we then assume propaganda?
Would we even further question the use of HIV/AIDS as the notorious propagation vehicle?
Would we go as far as to prove its stemming from the vicissitudes of recent cancer aid campaigns?
Or even its alleged orchestration by a profit-oriented pharmaceutical industry, purely to divert attention away from the high-risk lifestyle factors, including recreational and intravenous drug use that accompany ‘acquired immune deficiency’?

Whatever case we make, there are still those who prefer to cling to the ‘single simple cause’ - the orthodox virus-AIDS hypothesis to hold on to in their grief.
“There are those who vow to uphold the inflicted myth that HIV causes AIDS - that HIV exists at all”.
“There are those who perpetrate the saga of the friend who was unlucky enough to get AIDS through one unfortunate sexual encounter, colluding in a dangerous cult of death worship”.

Would there now be a change in the wind?
Is the day of questioning now at hand?
With eyes now open wide, how do we stand?