Hey Mon! lighten up - diff'rnt strokes for diff'rnt folks. The man was cool and he'll be missed.
Thanks for the story Wayde. I was away from the province most of August, all of September and most of October. When I got back I heard he had died but I never did get the details - I only knew him on the Radio, not being a resident of the big smoke.
Cheers.

I would recommend Assaulted Fish (http://www.xanga.com/assaultedfish) as an alternative to Hot Sauce Posse. They're performing at SketchFest Vancouver this week (http://www.sketchfestvancouver.com), pushing cultural boundaries for Asian-Canadians and those who have a different definition of multiculturalism, having grown up in a bicultural environment.

In the US, there is a greater prevalence and variety of comedy troupes pushing the boundaries beyond the stereotypes to not just "get the laughs", but to provoke thought around race, family, religion, and politics. Check these out:

http://www.coldtofu.com/
http://www.opmcomedy.com
http://www.porkfilled.com/

And, as a footnote, although I applaud Hot Sauce Posse for being another comedy group with a cause to pursue, their content was not the strongest and their ability to offend sadly overpowered their comedic content. Were it not for the fact that four of the troupe members were employed by CBC (conveniently and ironically fulfilling the multicultural quota for the month?), they most likely would not have made it on to public TV.

The man was definitely cool and will be missed. As I said, I was genuinely sad when I heard the news of his death.

I agree with Tonesia about Assaulted Fish. Same idea as Hot Sauce Posse, only funny, clever, original and likable. I think they're playing SketchFest this week on Granville Island. You should definitely check them out. (And no, I don't know anyone in either troupe.)

I don't really get "black history month" eh, any more than I'd get "white history month."

To me it feels like: "Black people are smart, too, eh."

I think people of all colours can already figure out that black people did lots of stuff over the years, same as chinese or mayan or native people, or white people.

I think the whole idea's a bunch of racist, opportunistic crap. I'd go for "human being month" though, where we remember everyone who was persecuted, enslaved, exploited, tortured, starved, gased, shot, wrongly medicated or beaten to death over the last five or six hundred years--whether armenian, jewish, ukrainian or black or whatever--a kind of egalitarian, empathetic remembrance day.

Truman Green

Think you have to look at where Black History Month started in order to understand it. If you know anything about economics and US history, particularly post civil war history, you might understand why it came about and why it's a good idea if for no other reason than that Americans need to be reminded of a basic element behind the general standard of living discrepancy between white Americans and black Americans to this day.

Viewed in that context, and taking some time to investigate the history of racism since 1865, you might not be quite so convinced that Black History Month is simply "racist, opportunistic crap."

G.West, I'm fairly well up on US history possibly because I majored in American History at UBC, (particularly slavery and the reconstruction era) and am a rather obsessive reader of media.

Regarding the discrepancy between whites and blacks in America, the CDC estimates that blacks are seven times more likely to be infected with HIV than whites, and that AIDS has become the number one cause of death for American black males between the ages of 22 and 44.

I know that Wayde Compton has written extensively and exclusively about "black" issues during his entire career, and so I wonder if he might comment on this bizarre discrepancy.

Concerning black history month, Mr. West, by your causal representation, every ethnic group should have its own month. Unfortunately there are not enough months to go around and we would soon be faced with a complicated overlapping situation.

Truman Green
I don't think your point about the high incidence of HIV infection among blacks is relevant evidence for your point of view. In fact, quite the contrary.

If you knew much about black history I doubt you'd make the statements you have, despite the courses you may have taken at UBC. Are you, for example, familiar with the unfulfilled promise of 40 acres and a mule which, in a very real way, crystallizes just the first of the agreements that establishment America never bothered to carry forward? Are you familiar with any of the several studies which value the relative advantage American industry, agriculture and commerce gained from more than two centuries of a slave economy – an advantage which has never been shared in any meaningful way with the individuals who actually made the sacrifices in terms of indentured labour?

It's hardly surprising that blacks might want a separate month for themselves since they've been treated so 'separately' from their white countrymen in all kinds of recognizable ways for centuries and especially since the emancipation. Since you’re the one who suggested every ethnic group ought to have a separate month – something I never did, I’ll leave that point lie.

But, since you asked, I'll give you a number of good reasons why black history month is a great idea that's worth continuing:

1. Black history month is a way of acknowledging the role of black Americans in the re-creation of American society after the catharsis of the civil war and the emancipation of those American citizens from southern states who had been, prior to the war, slaves. In a way, the Civil War completes the birth of a new nation that, with the eventual enforcement of civil rights legislation of the 1950s and 60s, becomes mature and responsible (at least nominally) by the middle of the 20th century. Black history month is a useful commemoration of this fundamental shift in the course of American nationhood.

2. Placing black history month in a distinct and recognizable place in the calendar is a way to ensure that blacks, who had been left out of so much American history, are no longer just ignored and taken for granted. Blacks have always had to assert themselves within the dominant culture in many ways - their progress in the 20th century has been, in large measure, a result of their own initiative and I'm sure that many blacks feel a separate month is way to remind all Americans, black and white, of the brutal facts of this struggle. A struggle which, as your citation of relative HIV infection rates, is, alas, far from over.

3. Blacks need to feel that they have important rights and responsibilities and a sense of ownership over the cultural, social, and governmental institutions of American society. In many ways, they have not achieved that status. In their role partial inheritors of the American dream, is it any wonder that they might prefer to continue to make the point that they are still separate and unequal in their own country?

cont'd below:

4. Black history month is no leftist trick. It is, in my opinion, a simple recognition of the racist fact that blacks are often forced into separate academic and civic enterprises in order to advance the cause of their own self-interest. Having been denied participation in the ownership and operation of much of America and its institutions for most of the country's history, it isn't much wonder that blacks such as Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X have had a separatist tendencies. Interestingly though, that separatist tendency (admittedly part of the reason behind Black History Month) is much less acute and serious in the U.S. than Quebec separatism is within Canadian culture.

5. Black history month contributes to a sense of pride and achievement - it enhances the commitment of blacks to their own community and assists the wider community in coming to know more about the lives and background of their fellow Americans.

6. If for no other reason than the fact that Black History month is a continuing reminder of the damage done by slavery to an important part of the American population it would be a worthwhile exercise. When the wounds of slavery and its lasting effects have been expunged from American society I’ll happily join you in decrying the fact that Blacks have a month (albeit the shortest in the year) all to themselves.

As for Wayde Compton, I'll let him speak for himself.

Hope that clarifies where I’m coming from,
Cheers

G. West, thanks for responding and trying to present a different point of view regarding black history month. I anticipated the cliches in your response. I don't agree with you but I do respect your willingness to get involved. I think that black history month is a source of comedy and a time for a few black writers to flog their wares--more than anything else. I mean, is there really any intelligent person in America or Canada who isn't aware of the three hundred years of slavery and subsequent racism that blacks have lived through? Do we really need our own month? It seems like a joke to me. Certainly Jews should get their own month, wouldn't you think? They've been persecuted as much, but I doubt if there is a single Jew in the world who would advocate it--probably for the same reasons as I ridicule it.

As for my comment regarding HIV, it had nothing to do with my opinion about black history month. It was a sincere attempt to get Wayde to respond to a very serious issue facing the black community in America and around the world, especially in light of the fact that there is a growing "Aids Reappraisal" movement. (And the fact that Wayde writes exclusively on "black" issues). Many scientists believe that the entire thing is a complete hoax, and that HIV does not cause Aids, in spite of the fact that they probably share similar risk patterns. I agree with this view, as does the president of South Africa.

google "virusmyth.com" or "rethinkingaids"

How would you account for such high HIV and AIDS rates among blacks, Mr. West?

Truman Green

First, I think it's at least minimally contingent upon you to actually deal with arguments raised in support of a particular point of view. You say you’re familiar with US history, maybe you should go back and check your old textbooks – or perhaps some more recent editions! All you’ve done so far is present an opinion.

As to higher rates of HIV Aids infections in predominantly black populations: There are numerous explanations for the phenomenon. Many of them relate to the historic inequity in the status of blacks within a dominant white culture; they also have a lot to do with a justice system that incarcerates blacks at something in excess of 5:1 over whites.

A tradition and a history that has resulted in blacks being, in many areas of the United States (and unfortunately this would not be untrue in some parts of Canada), almost a permanent underclass with low expectations, poor child and health care, lower quality schools and education – I could go on. Certainly black Americans have, in the end, to accept responsibility for their own behavior but to suggest that they started at anywhere nearly a equal footing with their white brothers and sisters is something few, even among the ranks of Neo Liberal theorists, would try to maintain. The fact that, since 1976, blacks have begun to feel proud enough of their heritage and aspirations that they support and celebrate black American achievements during Black History Month is just one positive indication that they are trying to improve themselves and their brethren. To call these efforts nothing more than an opportunity for humour is both callous and absurd – it says, unfortunately, more about you than it does about the point you are allegedly trying to make.

In conclusion, if you are seriously suggesting that many serious scientists actually hold the opinions you mention at the end of your post above I'm afraid we don't have much more to talk about.
Cheers, in any case,

Try http://aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.htm

There's a huge scientific movement to reappraise the claimed direct ratio link between HIV and AIDS, G.West.

Try the above link or go to Virusmyth. com.

I'd explain the whole thing to you but you'd have to understand all of the anti-retroviral therapy programs, protease inhibitors, nucleoside analog transcriptase inhibitors, (which interfere with mitrochondrial conversion of energy to ATP) viral mutation theory, exactly how the Aids diagnosis is made in Africa, (clinical case definition), the Elisa and Western Blott HIV tests, antibody and antigen specificity, diluting of the Elisa test to 1/400, and diluting of the Western Blott to 1/50.

You'd have to know that in Africa most of the population already has numerous pathogens which are capable of being substitutes for the antigens (proteins) which trigger the HIV tests. You'd have to understand that the viral load tests are really VIRTUAL viral load tests and they are amplified by using polymerase chain reaction, PCR--which was invented by nobel prize winnner Kary Mullis, who is probably the most famous of the AIDS reappraisers. Remember him at the OJ Simpson trial explaining how he was able to numerically amplifiy the DNA found in a tiny drop of blood?) Mullis claims that using PCR to amplify viral loads is a misuse of his discovery.

You'd have to know that the HIV virus which is actually a harmless passenger virus has never been properly isolated and that the specific etiology concerning progression to AIDS has never been scientifically established.

You'd have to know that thousands of serious scientists actually question if there is even such a thing as a latent virus than can cause a fatal illness 10 to 20 years after infection.

It's a huge, complicated hoax, Mr. West.

Here's a forensic program for you to begin:

The Aids cartel claims that the HIV causes neuropathy, and that neuropathy is a common early condition of HIV infection. This is ridiculous. There is no literature confirming that this so-called latent retrovirus can cause neuropathy. I mention this nonsense to give you a demonstration of the modus operandi of the Aids cartel.

These are the kinds of issues you must understand to even begin to dismiss my suggestion that the HIV-AIDS direct ration link is a hoax.

And if you wish to cut off dialogue because I suggest that many scientists agree with me, so be it, but you are preventing yourself from knowing the truth.

I know for a fact that the mutation scapegoat which the Aids cartel uses as an explanation for the difficulty in developing a vaccine is a complete comedy. The anti-retrovirals destroy the human immune system and it is blamed on the claim that the virus is so quickly replicating that it continually hides from the effects of vaccines and anti-retrovirals.

Above all, Mr. West, you'd have to recognize the absurdity of the claim that nature has evolved an immune-suppressing latent virus whose only job is to attack and destroy CD4 cells, and one which may not do its job for 20 years. It would be a huge joke if it hadn't caused so much agony. I had an acquaintance who committed suicide within weeks of getting a positive HIV diagnosis, which is in effect a harmless viral infection, no more serious than uncolonized hemalytic streptococcus A, (which causes necrotizing fascitis when it colonizes).

You'd also have to understand why no vaccine has ever been developed for HIV--and never will be. It's as simple as: If a vaccine would work we wouldn't need a vaccine. We're dealing with a compromised immune system here, eh. (I'll explain this in detail if you wish.)

These are some of the questions involved Mr. West. Do you understand any of them?

At least google Kary Mullis, nobel prize winner and AIDS reappraiser.

Truman Green
Actually, I've read a lot of this stuff and the contra opinions from the other side. I don't happen to agree with you or Kary Mullis but I do acknowledge there is a need for a lot more research. Most scientists wouldn't be quite as definitive and didactic about their conclusions as you seem to be which makes me wonder if it's really a political point you're trying to make.

In so far as the rest of our discussion is concerned, I assume you really weren't trying to make any point other than the above which really is a ‘little’ off topic since we're discussing Black History Month. In truth, the only reason I called you on your comments was the cavalier way you threw around the term 'racist' with respect to an essay that was, at least on its face, more of a memorial to a man with a lot of promise who died suddenly and very young. You seem to have an other issue with the writer of that piece which I’m in no position to comment on – other than as I’ve done.

As for an HIV vaccine, my understanding is that there are some very promising developments being made in that direction right now and, in the field of science, I think it is pretty foolhardy to suggest, as you do, that

but that's just me.

Like I said, cheers and no hard feelings.

I really liked what Morgan Freeman had to say recently on 60 Minutes about Black History Month :

Television often celebrates Black History Month with showings of his films, but Morgan Freeman thinks the whole idea of a month for black history is “ridiculous.”

The actor tells Mike Wallace he opposes designating a special month because it separates black history from American history, and is part of a labeling process that abets racism.

“You’re going to relegate my history to a month?” Freeman asks Wallace. After noting there is no “white history month,” he says, “I don’t want a black history month. Black history is American history,” he tells Wallace.

“I am going to stop calling you a white man and I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man,” he says. “I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You wouldn’t say, ‘Well, I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.’ You know what I’m saying?”

Lynn
I can certainly see Morgan Freeman's point. I don't know if you read the posts above I've been exchanging with, what's his name? ... Truman Green. I felt his initial reaction to the essay was so blatantly negative and racist that I had to call him on it. I think I made the best case it's possible to make for Black History Month nonetheless. I think men like Morgan Freeman, who have obviously transcended their background and its limitations, may not be the right people to ask about the relevance of continuing the practice though.

What do you think?

G. West did you go to my link and see 138 pages of serious scientists who repudiate the HIV/AIDS causal link? If you want to get the complete list just click on my link or look me up in the telephone book and phone me up. I'll mail you the complete list.

The HIV/AIDS hypothesis is the greatest scam in the history of civilization, and most scientists by now understand it, but most wish to get involved.

As for Black History, I'd suggest that you think about the meaning of the word, "racist", and why Morgan Freeman would say that it is ridiculous.

I only have a few minutes but I'll try to explain.

Racism, whether that of Charles Darwin who claimed that Negroes are a sub-species of human beings, soon to be wiped out by superior whites, or the KKK always amounts to one thing:

That all people who share a certain physical appearance also share the same characteristics, whether they are intelligence, rhythm, honesty, criminality, promiscuity etc. etc. And for this discussion, HISTORY.

This is what racism is, nothing more nothing less.

The suggestion that all black people share the same history is not only ridiculous, it's also a very stupid idea. And above all it is a very racist idea. Black people living in South Africa today have a very different history than black people living in Chicago or
Seattle or Vancouver. Black people living in Haiti have a very different history than I do, living in Surrey, or my parents who were a mixture of African, Caucasian, Cree and Seminole Indians.

Black History month is as racist as White History Month because White History Month would suggest that all white people share the same history. Now, if you're talking in terms of hundreds of thousands of years, it is true that all people originated in Africa, but I think you'll have to admit that Black History Month does not intend to include that kind of history. Freeman was CORRECT.

For more on the HIV/AIDS reappraisal click on Vaccines, How Risky Are They? here on Tyee in the News section. The article was concerning the attempts of M. Tyndale to get Vancouver Streetworkers to participate in vaccine trials. The article was written by Danielle Egan. Read the comments. Do some due diligence on AIDS Reappraisal. Get the list of scientists whose existence you deny so strongly that you consider it an obvious reason for discontinuing any dialogue with me.

Regarding Wayde's essay, I believe I'm as empathetic as anyone concerning such an early death.

I think Morgan Freeman's opinion about Black History Month is at least as valid as yours or mine, Mr. West.

I will admit that I wasn't really reacting to Wayde's essay as much as to the idea of Black History Month, which I truly dislike. But I think Wayde might consider coming on and discussing black issues "seeing as how" he writes continually and exclusively about them.

I have to go to work, but I'll write you a long essay about racism and black history month later today. For a primer read an excerpt from my novel, A Credit To Your Race, published in Wayde Compton's anthology, Bluesprint.

Hi again, G. West. Most scientists of integrity and independence understand that there are NO promising works being done in the field of HIV vaccines. Such vaccines are more likely to do damage to the immune system than stop the virus, which is harmless, and as I said, no more dangerous than staphlococcus aureas before it becomes resistant to methicillin.

Truman Green
Let's forget the HIV/Aids discussion. I looked at some of the material, scientific and otherwise, available and I was already familiar with some of the details of this debate. Controversy about the cause of HIV/Aids, the role of compromised immune systems, genetic and other propensities and the potential for treatments, vaccines etc. are nothing new in medical matters. I had a brother in law, now dead, (and no, he didn't die of AIDS) who was involved in infectious disease research and I have a son who is a physician as well. That hardly makes me an expert, of course, and I'm not in any way suggesting that you aren't entitled to your opinions. However, I think if you are a fair-minded person, who you certainly seem to be, then you'll agree that this is not a subject two laymen like you and I can really debate in a meaningful way – particularly via a comment board. I'm more than willing to admit that the jury is still out and leave the subject for others to discuss and hope you’ll agree to that.

As for our other discussion, I reacted to your comments about Black History Month because they suggested to me you believed that the idea of Black Americans having a month when they tried to appreciate and celebrate the role and contribution of black people in America was not reasonable and appropriate and was, in some way, racist. In fact, this is what you said:

That’s why I reacted. As for Morgan Freeman; it's hardly exceptional that he would feel the way he does - as I already acknowledged. It’s not very surprising that individuals who have already become respected members of the dominant culture would not feel separated by race any more. Obviously, they’d prefer to identify themselves in a general way as ‘men’, or ‘women’ or just plain human beings. That’s all to the good!

Further, I have no problem with the idea that 'race' as a concept belongs in history's dustbin, unfortunately, that's not the world we live in.

In the meantime, if people of whatever colour or background find it useful to celebrate the achievements and contributions of black people to culture and society in general during one month each year then I'm not going to complain about it. In my opinion, they have every right – for reasons I advanced yesterday.

As for your suggestions about memorializing the contributions of other racial and ethnic groups at other times of the year I don't really have much problem with that either. Anything that leads to increased understanding and empathy in a world where the common denominator is often suspicion and distrust and hatred. We might have to reduce everyone’s ‘memorial’ to a week or less if we go that route though!

Bring it on, in my opinion.

I don't know exactly what vintage of person you are and I don't know, obviously, anything about you. As for myself, I’m old enough to know that I can always discover something new and young enough to be willing to learn from the experience. If I misspoke by suggesting you made a racist remark when you were doing something quite different I freely apologize.

G. West, bringing people's cultural history to light is commendable. What Morgan Freeman is saying about Black History Month may not be politically correct but I think he is right on.

I really think Freeman would have the same opinion, even if he were not as successful as an actor as he is. He has one of the best takes on life that I have ever heard expressed...and it has nothing to do with the conventional definition of success.

In the very same conservation he asked Mike Wallace if he would like a Jewish History Month and Wallace answered with a very firm "no"....because doing so is an act of separation from the rest of humanity, rather than an inclusion in it.

It would be like me referring to you as "The Man with the Red Hat". ( I'm making an assumption here, that you are a man, of course). :-) Everytime I referred to you I would include the info that you wear "a red hat"....after awhile, don't you think you would say "enough with the red hat already" ...why is the mention of the red hat so damn important to you? Get beyond it, please, my name is G. West and I don't want to be defined constantly in terms of a red hat."

Then I would mention the "The History of Those who wear Red Hats Month"...which assumes that because you wear a red hat your history is segregated from the flow of the rest of history and that your history is also the same as all those others who wear red hats.

It is the same kind of thinking evident in Europeans who claimed Columbus discovered America...how can you discover a land where other human beings already live?. But you see it wasn't Europeans living in this new land and because they only saw the world in terms of themselves, in their very Euro-centric way they thus defined the world in terms of themselves also... not in terms of a shared humanity, not in terms of individual human beings... but in terms of all that differed according to their own navel-gazing world view.

"conversation"

Thank you for that, lynn. If I could explain it any better I'd give it a shot.

I definitely accept your apology, G. West. I respect your willingness to get involved in this discussion and to explain your point of view.

But I'd repeat, "I think the whole idea (Black History Month) is a bunch of racist crap."

Concerning HIV/AIDS, I consider myself quite capable of debating this scam, although I'd have to fine tune my oratory skills quite a lot.

This morning at 6:15 I watched the program, "Eye to Eye" on Omni 10, in which Jim Cantelon interviewed Mark Tyndall of the so-called "BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS." (which is incidentally funded by Merck Frosst giant pharmaceutical company, which at least by 6:15 when I started watching, Tyndall hadn't mentioned)

Tyndall claimed that by 2001, the year of the interview, 40% of Vancouver's illegal injection drug users were HIV positive, and that by 2005 their deaths due to AIDS would begin to be registered. If you go to the Canadian Statistics on AIDS deaths in Canada you will find that there were only 94 in the entire nation in 2005. This is an obvious discrepancy. The number low number 94 in itself is shocking. The mainstream media certainly hasn't gone out of its way to let Canadians know that the AIDS epidemic has almost wound down in Canada. I would have guessed a few thousand.

I referred to neuropathy for a very specific reason. In a Vancouver Sun article dated Saturday, January 21, 2006, writer Darah Hansen tells the story of several local men who are "suffering" from HIV infection and outlines their treatment and past history on anti-retrovirals. She writes that one of the men who is an Anglican minister was first diagnosed in l991 and is feeling fine except for fatigue and the neuropathy in his hands and feet, a condition that Hansen attributes to HIV infection and refers to it as a "common ailment associated with HIV." (page C3, January 21, 2006)

It is my contention that the neuropathy is commonly known to be a condition precipitated by the anti-retroviral drugs, and I'd suggest that anyone who is seriously interested in this issue can do his own research and determine if I am correct. What is the etiology for an immune depressing retrovirus to cause a disorder of the nervous system, or any other non-infectious condition, for that matter.

I understand that the internet has many websites claiming that HIV causes neuropathy--some of them admitting that anti-retrovirals may cause it too. See Virusmyth.com for a study entitled, "Concerns with Highly-activated anti-retroviral drugs."

This is the perfect scam: Claim that a retrovirus causes Aids. Treat people who are HIV positive with very dangerous, expensive drugs like protease inhibitors, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and AZT (basically poisons) When they begin to get sick with such ailments as liver failure, heart failure and early onset of AIDS, (and neuropathy) BLAME THE HIV INFECTION for the condition. The fact that one of the men in the article has been HIV positive for twenty years and has never had an AIDS related infection doesn't seem to bother either Hansen or the men themselves.

The human propensity for self-delusion is apparently infinite.

I challenge anyone to go to Virusmyth.com and click on "Africa" in the topics list; read all the articles and decide if Stephen Lewis and others are correct in their claims that 10s of millions of Africans are dying of infectious HIV precipitated AIDS--or are they just continuing to die of extreme poverty and common African infections such as pneumonia tuberculosis and malaria.

And yes, G.West and Wayde Compton, this is a particularly appropriate topic for black people to discuss.

Lynn
Some thoughts about your points:
1. When black people decide they don't want to celebrate Black History Month any longer they'll let us know – Morgan Freeman says he’s ready to drop it now. It's hardly surprising that the people who disagree with the concept are the ones who've been successful in finding a comfortable place in the dominant culture and feel more at home with a form of identification that doesn't key on colour. I like Morgan Freeman too but I bet you'd get a different reaction from Sidney Poitier and Harry Belafonte.
In the end, it’s up to black people themselves. I’m not going to try and tell them what to do in something as personal as this.

2. I'm also all for inclusion. But before you can have inclusion you have to have a period of education. Allowing communities to preserve and celebrate their uniqueness is good for them and it's good for the rest of us too - because we learn about the 'other' and discover that we can, in the end, learn to respect and not just tolerate our fellow Canadians of all stripes in all their permutations.

3. Some groups prefer to isolate their culture and set their communities apart - look at the Lubavitcher Jews in New York City, for example or the Hutterites in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Surely that’s their right too. I think it's important to realize that one size doesn’t fit all and some people like their red hats.

4. I agree with your observations about Native Americans but I'd suggest it was the desire of the dominant culture to assimilate and eliminate the people who lived here when Europeans arrived and not any surfeit of respect for their cultural differences that led to the decimation of native populations.

Truman Green
I think most of what I’ve said above applies to our discussion too.
Cheers to you both.

Truman Green
Just one tiny point. I believe, and my son has confirmed this, that statistics are frequently not a very good indicator of what actually causes death. He says that this is very often the case in AIDs deaths where heart failure, or cancer or some other cause of death such as opportunistic infection is listed on the death cerificate. I don't know how much influence this has on overall data but he said it's significant - especially in cases where families are uncomfortable with the fact that their loved one had Aids.

G, I have tried to tell you the truth about HIV/AIDS. HIV is a harmless virus that could never cause AIDs or any other infectious disease.

Some day you might understand what the AIDS cartel has done and the depth of the crime.

rethinkingaids.com

Also: http:virusmyth.com

Truman Green
You're free to believe what you wish about this. For me, to believe what you do would require me to accept a conspiracy of science and silence that is just beyond my imagining. Most of the people I know who have dedicated their lives and considerable talents to medicine and science and the welfare of their fellow man would have to be complicit in such a conspiracy - I don't believe they would do such a thing and I don't think they have done such a thing so I'll just say I can't accept what you call 'the truth'. No reflection on you or your beliefs! You may end up being right in the end - if I were convinced you're right I'd say so and if events conspire to to convince me that you're right in the future I'll certainly acknowledge it then.

Cheers.

Yes, G., it is true that if I am correct the HIV/AIDS direct link believers are perpetuating a crime on humanity and especially homosexuals, blacks and drug users (the main risk groups) that is perhaps unprecedented in human history.
You definitely seem to understand the implications of this disgusting hoax.

Your observations regarding incorrect death reports is very interesting.

In Africa Aids has been diagnosed by something called a "clinical case definition." This is done in the absence of any HIV test, whether Elisa, Western Blott or any of the new generation of recombinant antigen tests.

The CDC and NIH has come up with 29 illnesses any one of which can be used as a diagnoses of AIDS in the West. The best known is Kaposi's Sarcoma, a kind of cancer. (With a positive HIV tests, although they have invented a new disease called "idiopathic Aids for those who have AIDS, but are HIV negative).

For Africa all through the eighties, nineties and until now, the diagnosis for AIDS has been for the patient to present with the three following conditions: persistent cough, weight loss and diarrhea. These are conditions which are probably suffered by at least half of those who are poverty-stricken, not to mention pneumonia and malaria.

When Stephen Lewis comes crying that the whole continent is dying of AIDS (I exaggerate) it is from these unbelievable clinical case definitions that he derives his tears.

Remember, few of these people have ever had an HIV test.

Almost all African governments are corrupt with the exception of that of South Africa.

The governments are more than happy to concur with such huge numbers of their populations dying of Aids in order to reap sympathy and dollars from Western governments.

I have requested of an Omni 10 producer that she rebroadcast an interview with BC Center for Excellence in Aids employee, Mark Tysndale. Imagine my pleasant surprise when she agreed. It will be on the program, "Eye to Eye." Jim Cantelon interviews Mark Tynsdall in 2001.

It will be on Omni 10, March 3, at 9 a.m. This will be a good chance for you to see the claims of massive deaths forecast in Africa.

The BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, along with its ridiculous name is actually funded by Merck Frosst.

If you want me to explain the specificity or lack of specificity of HIV tests and how viral load numbers are derived I'll be more than happy.

I'll also post the website for Canadian statistics on AIDS deaths, which have quietly gone from on average 1500-1800 during the nineties to 94 in 2005. While your son's comments about wrongful death reporting is significant, they do not explain this huge downturn in the numbers of Canadian deaths.

All the best to you, G. The bible says the truth will set you free, and I always wanted to know the truth, but as for setting me free, not so much.

I'll try to Canadian statistics website:

http:/www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat...ic-vsac0605.pdf

I guess I blew the website, G. Maybe you can find it on your own.

Truman Green
9 am on a Friday morning isn't the best time for me to be watching TV - I'll try to remember to set my VCR.

As far as the diagnostic question goes, modern medicine uses differential diagnoses (DSM-IV) in a great many circumstances so that in itself is hardly an indictment. As to the problems of malaria, hunger, poverty, river blindness, lack of education and corruption, they are clearly on the list with HIV/Aids when it comes to Africa. I think you'd do Stephen Lewis a disservice if you left the impression that he's ignored the need for a response to these scourges too - see his book based on last fall's Massey Lectures.

I’d like to continue this discussion if you’re interested – unfortunately this comment board is going to be closed soon – any suggestions?