Had I wanted the correspondence addressed to you in the public domain I would have done that in the first place. You really should consider going
back to your origins in the Misty Isles, because Africa is not for sissies.

Yours faithfully,
Anita Allen
MA HDipEd BA

—–Original Message—–
From: Roy Jobson [mailto:R.Jobson@ru.ac.za]
Sent: 25 February 2008 10:25
To: Anita
Subject: Re: FW: Email from Thought Leader user

Dear Ms Allen,

I tried repeatedly to re-post your entire email without success. I also contacted the moderators to see if they could “fix” whatever problem it
was, but no luck. It always cut off at the same point. Perhaps you would have more luck if you tried posting it?

Regards,

Roy Jobson

Anita wrote:
since you have put this correspondence in the public domain, please be so kind as to post the entire email, except my contact details, as pasted below.

—–Original Message—–
From: Anita [mailto:anita@theallens.co.za]
Sent: 21 February 2008 10:34
To: R.Jobson@ru.ac.za
Cc: iAfrica
Subject: Email from Thought Leader user

Dear Dr Robson,

I read your “why I am not a rural doctor” post through to the end, and then re-read it, to make sure I had not missed any information. It is the first time as far as I remember that I have read anything under your byline. I found a number of things that puzzle me.

First, among, these is that you appear to have laboured in the footsteps of your ancestors among Venda people, yet you do not appear to have internalised any of the traditions of those articular Africans. It is rooted in healing based on knowledge of “do no harm” and “only by the fruits of the Earth shalt thou heal them”. From what you have written it is clear you have decided this approach warrants “Fuck you” status compared to your own pump pregnant women full of chemotherapy. Such arrogance is breathtaking, and the epithet I wish for your sake you will live to deeply regret.

Secondly, you dismissed Adv Anthony Brink, as a link in your “Fuck you” chain. The implication was that you had read everything on that one page
website – and everything there was not true – ARVS do have benefits. I must inform you, that I too have painstakingly assembled the facts, especially the scientific facts of viral theory of disease, and I concur with ADV Brink’s assessment that ARVS are toxic at any dose, there is no threshold of safety. In the mouths of two shall the truth be heard, as the good book says, and the law concurs.

Thirdly, in dismissing ADV Brink’s view of ARVS, you have also dismissed his view of the science underpinning viral theory in toto. This is the specific field which I have painstakingly investigated and assembled puzzle pieces. I say, not only do ARVS hold no benefits against HIV – or AIDS (less than 200CD4) but the entire scientific base has been upended by a new paradigm. Yes, it is taking time for everyone to recognise the changes, not least because self-styled thought leaders merely throw in a link to a website – without actually reading it.

I don’t think you quite appreciate the implications of dismissing the two of us – that is the particular person Adv Anthony Brink and all he stands for, together with me, President Mbeki, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, and our friends, colleagues, associates and the rest in the world who do not hold to your particular world view. I email you today in the hope that I can persuade you to give your best “thought leader” response to Adv Anthony Brink’s post – in public on the blog.

Who knows along the way maybe he can convince you that there’s more to pharmacology than a trademark name in a MERCK manual. Or just be a coward and ignore him, then he and I can add you to our list of those who never will be missed.

Yours faithfully,
Anita Allen
MA HDipEd BA

Rawlins and Brink would benefit immensely by just going out and working for a few weeks with HIV/AIDS
health workers (not the Raath/van der Maas type)

But, what the hey, its great living in your vested interest zone of Lala land

For the past 7 years I have had the privilege of knowing and assisting Anthony Brink as secretary of the Treatment Information Group. A standard response of those who are seduced by the HIV/Aids hypothesis is to assert that ‘ people are dying’ with the implication that they care more deeply about their fellow humanity and consequently cannot stoop to engage with opposing arguments. Assumptions of moral superiority have no place in scientific and academic scholarship. We are concerned with the facts as was Anthony Brink’s father, Robin, while serving as Evidence Leader for the TRC.

Having collected several files of the statistical pronouncements of ‘Aids experts’ over the past few years, I present a small sample of the many contradictions and false predictions that have fuelled the ‘opium of our age’.

1)In 2002 it was widely reported in our media( Mercury 24 Jan 02) that, according to insurance experts, the death rate in South Africa would peak at 16,000 per day in 2006, or nearly 6 million per year.
2)In 2002 UNAIDS estimated worldwide HIV cases at 42 million with a prediction of 60 million by 2010( Mercury 2 Oct 02).Their most recent estimate has been revised downwards to 33 million.Their estimate of 3 million deaths for 2000 is the same as the most recent year.
3)The National Intelligence Council of the USA predicted in 2002 that there would be 50 to 75 million cases in India,China,Ethiopia,Nigeria and Russia by 2010(Mercury 2 Oct 02)
4)As highlighted by Rian Malan the predictions of the Actuarial Society of South Africa have been continuously revised downwards. ASSA 2000 model predicted 7 million cases by 2004 under a change of behaviour model, with AIDS deaths of 408,000.
5)At an MRC Aids forum in 2003 Professor Alan Whiteside predicted 8 million cases by 2007.
6)Barnett and Whiteside (Aids in the 21st century ) twice quote the prediction by the US Bureau of Census of a negative growth rate in SA by 2003. Our population is growing at a steady rate of between 0.5 to 1.0%.
7)Despite very high HIV rates reported in Botswana and Uganda in the early 90′s their populations have continued to grow.
In the business world persons making such wildly inaccurate predictions would lose their jobs. The standard response of the HIV believers is what does it matter whether it is 4 or 6 million, but it is critically important because the HIV/Aids hypothesis is founded upon these statistics. Science has traditionally progressed by discarding hypotheses where predicted outcomes are not confirmed by later evidence.

The deceptive allure of the hypothesis is partly based on the delay period between so-called infection and death, currently an estimated average from 8 to 10 years. A progressively rising graph of HIV is followed by the rising graph of deaths. In 2001 the MRC published a study arguing that the rapid increase in adult deaths was caused by HIV, which indicated that many had died before 10 years, as HIV rates at ante-natal clinics had only been recorded at 4.3% by 1993 and the increase in adult deaths becomes evident by 1998. The fatal flaw in the hypothesis is revealed by a detailed analysis of the relationship between HIV rates and deaths among children aged five to fourteen years.

In March 2003 the MRC (mrc.ac.za)published a detailed analysis of child mortality for the year 2000, finding in the age group 0 to 4, 42,000 of a total of 106,000 deaths were caused by HIV/AIDS, in 5 to 9,1,000 of a total of 3,900 and 10 to 14 none of 3,800.

StatsSA(statssa.gov.za)report death totals for 2000 of 39,192 for 0-4, 3,610 for 5-9 and 3,059 for 10-14, indicating a registration completeness of 37%, 92% and 80% respectively. It reports 0-4 increasing to 61,461, 5-9 to 6098 and 10-14 to 3,968 by the year 2005. From the annual totals, even disregarding the population growth, any improvement in registration and other causes of death, the maximum possible total of HIV deaths in the 5 years to 2005 is 8,000 for 5-9 and effectively zero for 10-14.In addition 15 to 19 increases by only 1,400 over the 5 year period.

In their HIV study published Nov 2002 the HSRC(hsrc.ac.za)reported 5.4% from 2-18 broken down to 6.2% from 2-9, 4.7% from 10-14 and 5.0% from 15-18.Applying these percentages to the published 5 year census totals we can estimate 5-9 at 300,000 and 10-14 at 200,000. In their later study of Nov 2005 they revised these totals down to 214,000(4.5%)for 5-9 and 80,000(1.7%) for 10-14. Arithmetically(80+8) the prevalence could not have exceeded 88,000 in 5-9 in year 2001 which raises some awkward questions. Why had the MSRC, with its considerable expertise in scientific sampling, significantly over-estimated 5-9 in its 2002 study ? If 5-9 was only 88,000 in 2001 why was there no new incidence in that group as it moved through to 10-14 despite the MSRC finding 200,000 in 10-14 in 02 ?
The fatal question for the hypothesis, however, is why there is no evidence from statsSa of any correlation between HIV and later death among children 5-14.The significant increase in female deaths aged 25-29 is,according to the hypothesis, a result of infections while 15-19 and for males aged 30-34 from infections while 20-24.The HSRC study of 02 gives 6% for 15-19 or approximately 250,000 yet the same % for 5-9 is not correlated with any significant increase in deaths from 10-14 or 15-19.In fact the increase in deaths for these groups from 04 to 05 is effectively zero, as is the increase for 20-24 despite the HSRC reporting 200,000 for 10-14 in 02.

According to the experts the great majority of those infected by MTCT or breastfeeding die before the age of 5 which is confirmed by the MRC study of the year 2000. The experts assert that the incidence in 5-9 and 10-14 is a result of sexual abuse and hospital acquired infections which raises yet further awkward questions about experience in other countries,patterns of sexual abuse and conditions in hospitals. If the 5-14 prevalence found by the HSRC in 02 had arisen in a single dramatic jump in year 2000 why did this happen and why did the totals then decrease. Most importantly why do infants die before the age of 5,adults within 10 years, yet 5-14 survive indefinitely. The 06 death statistics are due soon but there is no evidence from our schools and colleges of any significant increase in deaths from 10-19. A significant proportion of these deaths are from non-natural causes.

Dr Rodney Richards,an American scientist who spent ten years designing advanced HIV diagnostics for Abbott Labs, presented a 22 page statistical analysis in 2004 to the MRC, challenging the conclusion of Bradshaw et al of a real increase in adult deaths resulting from HIV/AIDS. There was no response and the SAJS would not publish it.I have had several letters in our national press directly challenging the statistics of bodies like the MRC, HSRC and ASSA but have never had any response. I remain confident that there are researchers of courage and integrity within our scientific community.

Roberts’s letter is discussed at page 414-5 of ‘Lying and Thieving: The fraudulent scholarship of Ronald Suresh Roberts in “Fit to Govern: The native Intelligence of Thabo Mbeki”‘ http://www.lyingandthieving.com (free download).

In ‘choosing not to respond to Adv Brink’, is the real problem, Roy, not that you’re stumped for answers to my questions?

AB

‘a discrepancy between the clear improvement we recorded for virological response and the apparently worsening rates of clinical progression’

‘no significant improvements in early immunological response as measured by CD4-lymphocyte count’

‘no reduction in all-cause mortality’

‘and a significant increase in combined AIDS/AIDS-related death risk in more recent years’

– why are white doctors in South Africa still giving ARV drugs to Africans and their babies?

To kill them on purpose?

AB

I’m actually more concerned about whether or not “community service doctors” and other health professionals are today “abandoned” as I was some 25 years ago. (I sincerely hope not.)

I’m more concerned about whether or not a woman can still die of a ruptured uterus in a South African hospital because of no blood bank among other things.

I’m more concerned about whether or not nursing staff would still call a doctor to resuscitate a newborn baby while failing to recognise that the mother is dying of a postpartum haemorrhage. (She did not even have a drip!)

And getting back to the original reason for writing the blog, I am more concerned about the role of unqualified bureaucrats interfering in patient care, and the irrational “targeting” of a person who is implementing a nationally and internationally accepted programme. The underlying motivation for charging Dr Pfaff remains a mystery.