Friday, April 28, 2006

Virus Myth

Yesterday on NTV there was a very heated debate on HIV/AIDS problems in Russia. Although none of the participants doubted that HIV causes AIDS some facts were given that should at least make people take more critical approach towards HIV/AIDS causal relationship. For example, there are 17 800 registered people with HIV in Moscow. Some of them have HIV for more than 10 years without any dire consequences. At the same time there are only 510 people with AIDS and all of them are either junkies or people suffering from severe malnutrition. Dr. Peter Duesberg was the first whistleblower who thought that HIV is just a retro-virus that even theoretically cannot cause AIDS. For those who don’t know – people don’t die from AIDS. People die from so called AIDS caused deceases, the most wide-spread of which is pneumonia. When a person with HIV died from pneumonia it’s announced that the person died from AIDS. When no trace of HIV is found then the cause of death is simple pneumonia.

People with critical thinking are invited to visit Virusmyth.Com for more information. People with dogmatic and uncritical thinking are asked not to post comments, like, “Denying AIDS is the same as denying Holocaust, you dirty russki schwein”. Thanks God, we don’t live in Germany or Austria where people are thrown to jail for having thoughts that don’t coincide with official government versions.

HIV/AIDS critics are completely ostracized socially, politically and academically. Still there are many renowned scientists who were not afraid to be critical. Among them:

Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, who held a MacArthur Prize fellowship from 1981 to 1986, is associate professor of physiology at Michigan State University. Root-Bernstein, who made like Duesberg a thorough study of the AIDS literature.

The Perth Group of medical scientists from Perth, Australia, is also questioning HIV and AIDS. The team is headed by Dr. Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, professor of medical physics at Royal Perth Hospital, a teaching hospital at the University of Western Australia. The group studied the AIDS literature too, and was able to publish some of their findings.

Dr. Gordon Stewart is professor emeritus of public health at Glasgow University, and a former WHO adviser on AIDS. Professor Stewart studied the epidemiology of AIDS in the U.K. and other countries, and came also to the conclusion that AIDS is not a viral but a multi-causal behavioral disease.

Dr. Alfred H?ssig, (1921-1999) was professor emeritus in immunology at the University of Bern, Director of the Swiss Red Cross Transfusion Service, and President of the Board of Trustees of the International Society of Blood Transfusion. With colleagues he formed the Study Group for Nutrition and Immunity. The Swiss research group doesn't believe that HIV causes AIDS either. According to H?ssig et al. AIDS is a multi-causal disease caused by severe stress.

The inventor of the polymerase chain reaction, a technique used in AIDS tests, Dr. Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel prize winner, questions HIV and AIDS. Together with the founder of The Group Dr. Charles Thomas Jr., a former Harvard and Johns Hopkins professor, and with Phillip Johnson, Mullis wrote several articles.

Dr. Richard Strohman is professor emeritus in molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Charles Geshekter is another AIDS dissident and a professor of African history at the California State University, Chico

Dr. Etienne de Harven is emeritus professor of pathology, University of Toronto. He worked in electron microscopy primarily on the ultrastructure of retroviruses throughout his professional career of 25 years at the Sloan Kettering Institute in New York and 13 years at the University of Toronto.

New York psychiatrist Dr. Casper Schmidt was one of the first to explore the psychosocial background of AIDS.

The German virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka studied the virological data, and came also to the conclusion that HIV is a lab fantasy.

Dr. Heinrich Kremer was medical director of the Federal Clinics for Juvenile and Young Adult Drug Offenders for five German counties, including Berlin, Bremen, and Hamburg.

The list is just too long. If not for Internet we wouldn’t have known about these people, their research and conclusions. Be critical to what you Big Brother says.

Visit http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/

Monday, April 24, 2006

Imperialistic Gas

How many lies and distortion—č can an editor of Washington Post pack into one editorial? Let us count them in this piece called “Imperialist Gas. Russia doesn't want to "politicize" energy sales. It just wants to use them to bully its neighbors.” Published April, 23.

Last week the chairman of the state-controlled gas exporter, Gazprom, which provides a quarter of the European Union's supply, crudely threatened E.U. governments that his company will sell its product in other markets unless they give way to its "international ambitions."

What is meant here by “crudely threatening”. EU governments stated plain and clear, that they see Gazprom only as a wholesale gas supplier.

EU governments stated plain and clear that they want to “diversify” gas supply and started looking for alternative suppliers. Gazprom is highly dependent on European consumers. When it started asking evident questions – would “diversification” mean buying less gas from Gazprom or would it mean that Gazprom’s strategic plans to increase gas supply to Europe are useless, EU governments hinted that, “Yes. When we find alternative suppliers we will buy less gas from Russia”.

Gazprom made a conclusion - in this situation EU markets become too risky and the company might think about alternative consumers in Asia. This statement was regarded as blackmail and crude threats. Where is a threat? Who is threatening whom? What alternatives does Europe give to Gazprom? Why does a natural desire of a company to increase its profits makes EU so hysterical? 49% of GP shares are publicly traded and major Europeans mutual funds have them in their portfolios.

The chairman, Alexei Miller, was reacting to reports of British unease at the possibility that Gazprom might seek to purchase Britain's largest gas company.

“Unease” here means that British government thinks about a special bill with the sole purpose – to ban Gazprom from privatization tender of Centrica. If someone doesn’t know – Gazprom doesn’t sell gas to the UK. The country has its own resources.

Lacking Soviet military might or a large economy, Mr. Putin now describes Russia as an "energy superpower."

It’s a lie. Putin never described Russia as an “energy superpower”.

He offered a taste of what this might mean in January, when he personally ordered a cutoff of gas to Ukraine -- which had the temerity to reject his candidate in a presidential election -- even though this also meant a shortage of gas in Vienna, Rome and Berlin.

“Even though” this meant that Ukraine started stealing Italian, Austrian and German gas. In this conflict Putin acted as a pathetic weakling. He immediately agreed to go on subsidizing Ukraine with cheap $95 per 1000 m3 gas. He immediately agreed with Ukraine’s demand to pay twice for gas transportation. The only “good” thing – before the conflict Ukraine was stealing gas with impunity. Now it informs post factum how much it siphoned for its own needs and promises to pay for it later - $800 million so far in just 4 months.

As for the politicization of economic markets, Europeans wondering about Russia's intentions need look no farther than Georgia and Moldova, two former Soviet republics that, like Ukraine, have attempted to consolidate democracies and establish independence from Moscow.

Anyway, Moscow is eagerly helping them to establish independence – no more subsidized gas and no more imports of poisonous ersatz-wine. Total independence and freedom!

Late last month Russia abruptly banned the import of their wines, even though these supply more than 40 percent of the Russian market and account for a large part of the two countries' foreign exports. The health reasons cited by Russian officials were unserious.

If health reasons are not serious why then American and European authorities ban wine exports from Georgia and Moldova? American FDA was the first to do it. The reason is simple – health dangers. In this perverse world civilized countries don’t want to endanger health of their citizens but “uncivilized” Russia must import wine with DDT. There is one very easy way for civilized countries to help Ukraine – pay for Ukrainian gas. Refusal. Another very civilized way to help Moldova and Georgia – import their wine. Europe refuses yet again – this wine is a far cry from civilized standards. But somehow “uncivilized” Russia (with uncivilized health standards, I persume) must do what American and European friends of young democracies refuse to.

If St. Petersburg can become the forum at which Western leaders make clear they will not accept Russia's use of economic blackmail or military force to dominate its neighbors, or its backing of a dictatorship in Belarus, then the summit might be worth having after all.

Western leaders for so long played with Russia typical “win – loose” games that they are horrified at the possibility that a scenario could be “win – win”. What should Western leaders do for that?

1. Stop economic blackmail – let Gazprom to European retail natural gas markets.
2. Accept Kosovo scenarios for Transniest, Abkhasia and South Osetia.
3. Stop protecting opium production in Afghanistan and stop heroine traffic from Afghanistan to Russia. Destroy opium plantations. US troops can do it a one week.
4. Agree to buy natural gas at the border of Russia and not at the border of Ukraine. Negotiate directly with Ukraine transportation prices and “mystical gas disappearance” problems.

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

La Russophobe

A new blog joins Russia watching blogosphere under a telling name “La Russophobe” by Kim Zigfeld (Kimberly Elisabeth Zigfeld, I persume?). She started the blog only a week ago but already posted twenty+ Russia (and Russians) bashing posts. For example, Anastasia Myskina semi-nude photos popped up in GQ. Kim comments:

Can't say as I recall Chris Everett or Martina Navratilova or Lindsey Davenport or the Williams sisters suddenly turning up nude, can you? And it's Russia that has the big problem with white slavery and rampant AIDS, isn't it? I wonder if the two could be at all related?

All in all Kim’s abhorrence and hatred against everything Russian is so brutal and totally irrational that she draws suspicion upon herself. What if she’s just an agent provocateur hired by Putin to discredit critics of Russian politics:

- Comrade Zigfeld, your task is posting hundreds of obnoxious comments at all Russia related blogs and blatantly insulting everyone who doesn’t agree with you. You aim – make every Russia watching blogger feel ashamed to share your opinions. I promise you a special bonus if the phrase, “You are no different from Kim Zigfeld”, becomes an affront to anyone who dares to criticize me. Verstanden?
- Yes, Comrade Putin. But I don’t know if I can cope with it. At least not 24/7.
- Do you know what a civic duty is? Consider it an order from Politburo of the “United Russia” party.
- Jawohl, mein Praesident.

Don't miss Kim's comment on Russia Blog forum.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Poor Yushchenko

Ann Applebaum published a new op-ed in Washington Post named “Poison and Power In Ukraine”.

One of the first things he told me was that the criminal investigation into his poisoning had stalled. When he first came to office, the Ukrainian chief prosecutor -- still loyal to the previous, post-communist regime -- had dawdled, prevaricated and let the top witness in the case depart for Russia. The president, whose face is still mottled by side effects of the poison, said that Ukrainian authorities had asked the Russians to hand the witness over for questioning. And? He shrugged. "You see how it is," he said.

The dog ate my homework, indeed! Just a year ago Yushchenko was absolutely sure about who poisoned him. Now – you see how it is. We just sit here doing nothing and waiting when Russians (who swear they don’t know a thing about the mysterious witness) hand him over. Such behavior is outright stupid as more and more people begin to believe that his “poisoning” was a result of unsuccessful rejuvenation operation.

Far from omnipotent, he is surrounded by corrupt officials, many of whom are easily won over by a Kremlin awash in oil money, most of whom are still loyal to the previous, pro-Russian, post-communist regime. As president in a parliamentary system, his powers are limited in any case, but in Ukraine, where secret information his police officers intercept is more likely to be sent to Moscow than given to him, they are almost nonexistent.

Kuchma, the author of the book “Ukraine is not Russia” – is pro-Russian?! Big hairy invisible Russian hands everywhere. Ukrainian police officers, awash in Russian oil money, reporting directly to Putin, skipping their poor president on the way. Those pesky dogs eat all of my homeworks, Mrs. Applebaum.

But the truth seems much more straightforward to me. There is Yushchenko, alone in his big office. There is Ukraine, a country of 50 million people. And in between the two are thousands of people -- civil servants, politicians, journalists, business people -- who have deep financial and personal interests in maintaining the corrupt status quo. For Ukraine, the Orange Revolution was the easy part, compared with what lies ahead.

This passage is a good example why Washington Post proudly bears the name of Pravda on Potomac. As Petrovich from inosmi forum pointed out, here we see almost a word-by-word translation of numerous Pravda “op-ed” published in the early 30’s just before the infamous “purification” of the Communist Party. The picture is the same. There is good and hardworking Comrade Stalin, working late at night in his Kremlin office. There are millions of Soviet workers and peasants. And in between the two thousands of people – corrupt civil servants, secret Trotsky admirers, American spies, and unrepentant White Guards officers – who have deep interests in maintaining the corrupt status quo. For the USSR, the Great October Socialist Revolution was the easy part, compared with what lies ahead. What lies ahead, Mrs. Applebaum? How can we get rid of these enemies of the people? Should we tolerate them or should we crush them with our revolutionary implacable fist of steel? Should we be afraid of their nasty conspiracies or should be wipe them clean from the book of history? In the name of freedom, democracy and equality. Amen.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

More about Illarionov

Dietwald Claus wrote an interesting article on the topic of Andrei Illarionov state of professionalism. "A latter day George Kennan? A Second Look at Andrei Illarionov" can be found here.

Besides some highly original data fishing and flimflamming, Mr. Illarionov presentation is a text-book example of how to use statistical data selectively and misleadingly in order to prove an arbitrary point. Impressive as his tables and charts may appear, at closer inspection most of them turn out to have been selected and presented in a manner that is not technically justifiable: scales of comparative data do not correspond, while others are chosen to deliberately over- or understate trends, depending on what Mr. Illarionov is trying to say. Almost always, these distortions are cleverly done, hard to spot at first glance, and difficult to criticize immediately. Criticizing each and every one of them would require far more time than Mr. Illarionov’s original presentation. Clearly, Mr. Illarionov knows exactly what he is doing.

Anybody who has had to with politics in any detail is familiar with the phenomenon that reported opinions tend to sound less reasonable than they are. The strange phenomenon with Mr. Illarionov is that when one reads directly what he has to say, and looks at the data he provides to back up his opinions, he appears increasingly unreasonable. In fact, he gives the impression of not only being wrong, but outright dishonest.

Monday, April 03, 2006

Ukrainian "Russians"

Kiev International Institute of Sociology conducted a poll at the end of 2005. The results speak a lot about reasons why “pro-Russian” Yanukovich defeated “pro-Western” Yushchenko at the Ukrainian parliamentary elections.

According to the poll results 76,7% of respondents consider themselves Ukrainians and only 18,2% Russians. At the same time 44,2% of respondents consider their native language Ukrainian and 42,5% Russian, 11,3% speak so-called ‘Surzhik’ – a dialect linguistically stays between Ukrainian and Russian. In general 45,3% of respondents said it is easier for them to speak Russian and 44% - Ukrainian.

The results stress a very important point about East Ukraine – West Ukraine division. “Pro-Russian” here means – the right to be considered Russian (or Surzhik) speaking Ukrainian. Although the comparison is somewhat speculative but we are talking about the same phenomenon as English speaking Irish or Scots. When Ireland became independent one of the major problem of the new republic was – should we consider Irish we don’t speak Gaelic real Irish? There were several major attempts to make Gaelic the only official language of the country including total ban of English in mass media, government organizations, public speaking. That was time of political struggle between “pro-English” and “pro-Celtic”. But were these “pro-English” parties really “anti-Irish”? Does it hurt the independence of Ireland that English and Gaelic are both official languages of the country? Here is an article on the topic of independent Ireland and the language from Wikipedia.

Orange “democrats” believe that Ukrainian should be the only official language, Blue “democrats” think that Russian should be official too.

Via Regnum