. Interesting to see the BBC headline that screams “Aids epidemic a global disaster.” The report makes reference to the fact that the “Aids epidemic” now falls within the UN definition of a disaster – an event beyond the scope of any single society to cope with. I wonder if this is the same United Nations that has systematically exaggerated the scale of the Aids epidemic and the risk of the HIV virus affecting heterosexuals, according to a leading expert on the disease? Mmm – the BBC makes no reference to that, nor to the fact that the numbers of people worldwide with HIV have been inflated and the UN Aids agency has wasted billions of pounds on education aimed at people who are unlikely to become infected. The Aids plague has been a favourite BBC hobby horse and it faithfully assists the UN in misleading and scaring the public by promoting myths about the disease.
A GLOBAL EXAGGERATION
Bookmark the permalink.
Presumably Malaria will have reached this state many many years ago yet we see so much emphasis placed on Aids.
It would be nice to see the Beeb devoting more time raising awareness of the devastating effect of malaria. How many die of malaria each year? Several million I suggest
Nice to see how your usual UN hobby horse gets so many mentions, when the report comes from the IFRC and refers only to the UN in terms of how the term ‘global disaster’ is used.
On a site which is supposed to work against biased reporting, perhaps you should first work in casting out the beam from your own eye.
Your chances of dying of AIDs in the UK (and the US) is, of course, virtually nil compared to the 15 other things you will die of first. No. 1 being CANCER… not contracted via sex.
Mention that BBC.
Mind you, chances of being hit up for an AIDs fundraiser, AIDs awareness Day, et al: Massive.
Because of the massively disproportionate amounts of money devoted to research for a disease that will not kill you in the UK unless you indulge in high-risk behavior.
But for some odd reason AIDs is a major topic amongst the ruling elites. Never figured that out.
Once again Scott you excel yourself. If you cannot deal with the substance of the post – namely that Aids is NOT a global disaster and that the BBC fails to point this out then stick to reading White Papers.
Scott,
Why do you post here so much when you clearly do not understand the concept of the blog and you consider it such a waste of time, have you no life?
Scott is a typical newbie. He barges in and accuses us of the most basic errors, as though we have OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY MISSED something that “Scott” can see right away.
Anti B-BBC commenters always say the same thing: The BBC isn’t biased, even when it calls 7/7 mere “bombings” and not an “atrocity”, “mass-murder”, or “terrorist attack.”
No, the BBC isn’t biased, we (B-BBC) are the one’s who are biased.
Stick around Scott. You will end up embarrassing yourself like other vanquished B-BBC dissenters like “Korova”, “Hillhunt”, “John Reith (BBC)” or “Nick Reynolds (BBC)”
” If you cannot deal with the substance of the post – namely that Aids is NOT a global disaster ”
If that was what you intended the substance of your post to be, then maybe you should have prevented yourself from getting hung up on your precious UN bashing.
“Scott is a typical newbie”
Oh probably. Still, never mind – give me a few months and I’ll be overlooking David Vance’s numerous and very obvious failings, fawning all over his flawed and bigoted rants with all the critical faculties of a lemon. By then, I’m sure I’ll fit right in.
Oh probably. Still, never mind – give me a few months and I’ll be overlooking David Vance’s numerous and very obvious failings,
Sure. Go for it.
But at least you won’t have to PAY HIM BY LAW £150 (or whetever the TV tax is) a year for the privilege, will ya slick?
Scott,
You add so much to the debate.
very interesting that UN definition of a disaster.
The UN would do anything to empower its unelected self. If that includes exagerating GW, AIDS, Endangered species etc. then so be it.
“Only the UN can save the world” type headlines turn up on that commie rag, The Independent.
Funnily enough the WHO has just observed that there’s no heterosexual threat from AIDS at all, and never was:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/threat-of-world-aids-pandemic-among-heterosexuals-is-over-report-admits-842478.html
I didn’t see the BBC bigging this view up quite as much. I wonder why?
Hey Scott, become a B-BBC reader, become a Right-winger: Join-us Join-us,
If its ok by you guys I’m NOT right wing.
I can see the BBC is still biased though, most often against the right wing…
PKB
I fully respect your view. I know plenty of people are are not right wing who can still detect which way the wind blows….so no prob for me for us all to come here and share our views of the Bbc
Funnily enough the WHO has just observed that there’s no heterosexual threat from AIDS at all, and never was
No they haven’t. There is little threat of a heterosexual pandemic outside Africa. But hey, who cares about the darkies?