Why does senior officials like Deputy Chief Personnel Officer Stephanie Lewis still seem to think that they can manipulate us by eloquently presenting unsupported material surrounding the now overstretched HIV/AIDS epidemic? In fact, what type of thought would give rise to believe in this day and age, that figures produced by UNAIDS and other Western Statistics Organizations are to be considered, let alone believed?

Are we still warped in destructive belief of foreign theory and hypothesis with regards to the continuous proliferation of HIV/AIDS disinformation in the Caribbean? Or is it our sworn intention to remain oblivious to numerous published reports and articles relating to the great AIDS hoax?

If we ask Ms Lewis or any Senior Government official to explain to us the basic composition of the ‘HIV virus’, would they have a clue? Ms Lewis said, as she addressed the opening ceremony of an industrial relations round table on “HIV/AIDS in the workplace” yesterday, that in the 23 years since HIV/AIDS was discovered in the United States, “the disease has spread to pandemic proportions around the world”. She also went on to state according to writer Rohandra John, that “UNAIDS had estimated that by the end of 2003, there would have been 40 million people living with AIDS – and that the Caribbean region has the second highest prevalence globally, with 500,000 cases, a seeming threat to both the productive and reproductive life of those infected”.

Since neither Ms Lewis nor her source(s) of information have non other aim in this circumstance than to procure an even more heightened sense of fear among the citizens, more so the skilled workforce of Trinidad and Tobago with doctored statistics and imprecise information pertaining to HIV/AIDS, it must be made known that there are those of us who have taken time, and paid special and undivided attention to various facts relating to the whole saga.

Firstly, we the people of T&T must from this day refrain from the succumbing to non-detailed and unexplained pieces of information in relation to ‘sweltering cases’ of so-called disease crises – especially HIV/AIDS. As record books have it, to this day, not even one scientific study has been done and published that demonstrates one causative link between the HIV virus and the ‘AIDS-defined diseases’, let alone an unbelievably feared sexually transmitted one. And, despite research efforts that exceed those on all other viruses combined and have generated over 60,000 papers on HIV, it still has not been possible to prove that HIV causes AIDS – that HIV is even harmful.
.
But hold on … ‘AIDS-defined diseases’? Whatever does that mean? - You may ask in complete stupor. Well, AIDS as is recorded by acclaimed scientists and researchers, is actually a collection and reclassification of old sicknesses such as: M.S., measles, Hodgkin’s disease, leukaemia and meningitis.

Knocked for six yet? Don’t worry, you’ll soon be.

Do we have any idea about the processes of an HIV test? What is looked for? What the final diagnosis is based upon? Any thing about the origins of its prognosis? How about the scientifically proven fact of there existing over sixty different medical conditions including: malnutrition, influenza and syphilis, even pregnancy, which can trigger a ‘HIV-positive’ diagnosis? More importantly, yet basic, what is HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus)? And why is it in the midst of such an overblown sex culture scare in our country?

Dr. Harvey Bialy, a molecular biologist and scientific editor of the journal Bio Technology once commented saying: “I can’t find a single virologist who will give me references which show that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. On an issue as important as this, there should be a set of scientific documents somewhere, research papers written by people who are accessible, demonstrating this. But they are not available. If you ask a virologist for that information, you don’t get an answer, you get fury”.

This is just a mere spectacle of the vast number of unanswered questions relating to the alleged HIV/AIDS pandemic in the Caribbean, let alone Africa and the rest of the world.

But why would those in authority continue in relentless fashion to disregard this point of view in exchange for the profuse reiteration of rising HIV/AIDS cases in T&T and the rest of the Caribbean. Why, without in depth information to the general public, does mountainous monetary aid continue to flow from the World Bank, The UN and The European Union? Why in similar fashion does our TV screens continue to be infiltrated with frightening HIV/AIDS advertisement campaigns?

What is it that propels people like Ms Lewis to pump such information into the veins of our print and TV media? And more significantly, what is it that makes us so ready to get high in the wake of its effect? Isn’t it common procedure to acquire enough relative information pertaining to any one subject before feeding its hypothesis to a class, let alone a nation? Are we forgetting that Dr Robert Gallo, the then senior researcher at the National Cancer Institute of the U.S.A., who had claimed to discover ‘AIDS’ in 1981, was found guilty of scientific misconduct? Are we putting aside the event of April 23rd 1984, when Margeret Heckler, the then U.S. Secretary for Health and Human Services pronounced in coalition with Gallo that the responsible virus for AIDS was HIV – and by 1986 a vaccine would be developed? Well, do you see a vaccine?

As one leading researcher puts it, “the Heckler-Gallo announcement is a variation of the Hitlerian big lie technique: tell a big enough lie often enough, and people will believe it. People believed, and continue to believe the big lie because of the general mind-destruction wreaked by compulsory state education”. Do we honestly consider the conclusions of Ms Lewis and her information providers to be any different? Why should we? What has honestly changed between then and now?

To transform the devout believers of the inflicted myth that HIV causes AIDS – that HIV exists at all, one could easily delve in to the deepest depths of swindled information and the complex evidence of illicit medical practice to reveal all. But should it really take that much? Isn’t it plain enough already?