The UN is Bogus

From the people who brought you the IPCC, another lie has been exposed. The UN’s AIDS numbers were a bit off.

The United Nations’ top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement.

AIDS remains a devastating public health crisis in the most heavily affected areas of sub-Saharan Africa. But the far-reaching revisions amount to at least a partial acknowledgment of criticisms long leveled by outside researchers who disputed the U.N. portrayal of an ever-expanding global epidemic.

The latest estimates, due to be released publicly Tuesday, put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million, a cut of more than 40 percent from last year’s estimate, documents show. The worldwide total of people infected with HIV—estimated a year ago at nearly 40 million and rising—now will be reported as 33 million.

Having millions fewer people with a lethal contagious disease is good news. Some researchers, however, contend that persistent overestimates in the widely quoted U.N. reports have long skewed funding decisions and obscured potential lessons about how to slow the spread of HIV. Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS.

“There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda,” said Helen Epstein, author of “The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS.” “I hope these new numbers will help refocus the response in a more pragmatic way.”

The UN’s IPCC had to downgrade its scare numbers for climate change in their fourth report. But they were back to screaming and hollering only a few days ago.

Bottom line, UN agencies cannot be trusted to provide accurate data because the have a political agenda and they are prone to hysteria. What’s the value in their science if its that off base? In any other field, their credibility would be disastrous. But because they have a monopoly on the “global do-gooders” business, they can make any claim and get taken seriously by gullible saps (eg. the press and their ilk). 

I suspect that there will be further revelations about their fudging of numbers, not just on AIDS, but on Climate Change.

As always, when it is govt or public sector funds involved in aid, follow the money. 

The same is the case for that stupid Nothing But Nets project to give each African a net for “protection” from malaria.  Since the nets have a limited lifespan, NBN would be in business for perpetuity and rather than millions, hundreds of thousands will be killed annually by malaria.

DDT would be a lot cheaper and versatile, with the potential to eradicate it once and for all under a smart deployment plan.

Posted by  on  11/20  at  09:26 PM

The first eco-hysteria was the DDT scare of the 60s. By banning DDT millions of men, women and children have died needlessly in poor countries. Apparently, that’s what some in WHO, the UN health org wanted.

In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, “Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing.”

[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]

Yes, the UN is evil.

Posted by  on  11/20  at  10:10 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages

<< Back to main