I just got back from a cross-country trip, among
other things, to visit the author, Alan Cantwell,
who has written extensively on how the U.S. government
started the AIDS epidemic, as biowar genocide against
gay men, in the form of contaminated vaccines
given to gay men in New York and San Francisco in
the late 1970s.

I met also with a cousin in LA, whose wife's father
had worked for the Ukrainian underground, against
both the Nazis and the communists, until his
family was forced to flee.  She related the
story of Stalin's forced starvation against the
Ukraine- some 7 million people killed.  Up to
25,000 deaths per day, was the reality.

I did some research.  Do you know what the New York
Times had reported?   A journalist went there, looked
around, first hand, was very satisfied with what he
saw, and reported back that there
was no starvation at all, in the Ukraine.

At the time, you see, "Uncle Joe" was considered
a necessary friend of "Uncle Sam".  The U.S. had not
reversed itself, yet, as it later did also with other
characters like Noreiga, Osama bin Laden, Sadam Hussein,
etc.

I recall also reading of a group of Jews who had
approached the U.S. State Department in WWII, and
tried to tell them that Jews were being rounded
up and killed.  Do you know what the State Department
representative said to them?

Roughly to paraphrase, "That is a pretty fantastic
claim.  I think that if anything like that were happening,
the U.S. government would know about it."

People forget: the Holocaust was a conspiracy- a real
conspiracy.  The German government never admitted what
they were doing. In fact, they covered it up with films
of Jews happily playing the violin, in the camps.

The U.S. government knew, also, but looked the other
way.   Hopefully, not because they wanted it (who knows?),
but more likely because they didn't want to be bothered
with pressures to do something, when they had more
pressing concerns, and also because they simply
didn't care very much.

They looked the other way- just like you are looking the
other way, right now, at the genocide that took
place against gay men.   Do you really think that
the human race deserves to live at all, with dirty
laundry like this, being kept out of sight, yet again?

There is more sense, these days, in many a Letter
to the Editor, than there is in most media journalists.
I agree fully with a letter from a Jewish concentration
camp survivor, who said (to paraphrase from memory)

 "It is not an excuse to say 'We didn't know'.
   'We didn't care', is more like it"

Didn't *want* to know, is more like it.

Alan Cantwell and I are like two, old Nazis-hunters,
as rightfully obsessed with something, as most of
society is indifferent or hostile to it.

The media are not excusable by reason of
ignorance.  It is more than capable of knowing
the truth.  It look the other way because it is
much easier to do so.  No responsibility, that way.
No personal risk.  No guilt or shame shared with the
country in which you live.  No angry victims
wanting to break down your door.  No political
chaos and instability.

All of this, an ill-gotten complacency, deserving
of being shattered.  There could hardly be such a thing
as a means that would be too rude.

I have taken this investigation well beyond mere
speculation.    What I had undertaken, with Alan's
help, was the very same kind of statistical analysis
that is undertaken every day, to evaluate the safety
of new drugs, vaccines and treatments.  It is standard
evalation, meaningful enough to hold up in court.
Countless lives are held in the balance by such
everyday scientific tests- it had *better* be meaningful.

   http://www.bhc.edu/eastcampus/leeb/aids/aidtesk.htm

This probably has more rigor to it, than the average
published study, many which do not seem to bother
trying to analyze and justify the validity of their
choice of control group, or bother to show fine details
the standard mathmatical steps leading to the final
result- that much is usually taken for granted.

I once exchanged emails with Professor Garth Nicholson,
a microbiologist who has researched Gulf War Syndrome,
about this study.   He told me confidentially, what
he has not said publicly- something that I already
knew in my heart- that it should not really even
have been necessary to do the study, that it was
"manifestly obvious" that the vaccines given to gay
men were infected with HIV.

Nor was this simply because the vaccines were
produced from the blood of gay men.  Dr. Don Francis
had stated that either one of two methods used to
inactivate the vaccine would have been sufficent to
destroy any trace of HIV.

There were *no* cases of Kaposi's sarcoma among
gay men in Manhattan 1973-1976. If there had really
been HIV broadly circulating in New York, enough
to contaminate the vaccines, even *if* it could have
survived the sterilization process, then there
surely would have been at least a few reported cases of
Kaposi's sarcoma.   In those days, it was not
uncommon to advance to full-blown AIDS within a
matter of months.  Kaposi's sarcoma was rare enough
that it only took a comparative handful of cases, in
non-traditional groups, for epidemiologists to realize
that something was very wrong.

The statistical test detailed in the above URL
takes this issue from the realm of "conspiracy theory"
into the realm of scientific evidence, providing a clarity
for anyone who cares to see: The effect of the vaccines
was akin to mowing men down with machine guns.

There is nothing terribly subtle about it, any
more that it was terribly subtle to round up Jews
and put them on trains.   Mind you, even the act of
putting large numbers of people on trains was not
enough to make people assume the worst.  In the
minds of people who didn't want to see, it was
comforting to believe that these were merely people
being "relocated".

I recall talking to a woman who had been a young
girl in Nazis-occupied Czechoslovakia, who said
essentially that- "No, it wasn't enough to make us suspect.
We didn't have any idea where they were going."

The media inspires my deep contempt with its arrogant,
dismissive attitude toward "conspiracy theory".
In the media's book, "conspiracy theorists" are
"nutty", "wacky", "loony".  It is a calculated
vocabulary, like GOP propaganda-smears
against Democrats and the Left.  Mind you,
a vocabulary like "loony" or "wacky" would never
be applied by the media against an institution like,
say, the Catholic Church, no matter if they believe their
leader to be "infallible", or believe in "miracles"
or "virgin births", or "exorcisms".

The tone would always be deferential, no matter
about the shady financial scandals and pattern
of suspicious deaths, that are at most lightly touched.
That would be "conspiracy theory" - oh dear - even if the
police have finally made some arrests for the murder of a
key figure in the Vatican banking scandal,  who had
been found swinging at the end of a rope in London.

In the Church, it is considered a *virtue* to believe
things not only without supporting evidence, but
even *against* the evidence.

Regardless, "conspiracy theorists" are the ones
supposedly guilty, across the board,
of believing things without evidence, no matter how
much evidence they may competently and diligently try
to amass.   The whole of us get tarred with the same
broad brush- for political reasons.

The media tars conspiracy theory because we have a
government that engages in as much real conspiracy
as your run-of-mill terrorist group, and because the media
is a compromised corporate prostitute that caters to
power, no matter how corrupt that power might be.

Neither the media nor the government should be allowed
to get away with sweeping genocide under a rug-
whatever that means, whatever it takes, and
certainly without regard even to the indifference
and ignorance about the subject, in the gay community,
itself.

Tom Keske

[1] Reference

Viral Epidemiology Section, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892.

In the United States, New York City has had the greatest number of subjects at risk
of AIDS for the longest period of time. This population therefore serves as an
indicator of changes in cancer risk which may emerge among persons at risk
from AIDS. Using a proportional incidence method, we surveyed cancers occurring
among single (a surrogate for homosexual) young men and married young men
in Manhattan, the rest of New York City, and the remainder of New York State.
The baseline period was established earlier to be 1973-76, during which time
no cases of Kaposi's sarcoma were observed among single men in Manhattan.
By 1985, the frequency of Kaposi's sarcoma in this group was increased 1,850-fold
(compared with expected cases derived from other registries).