JACKHAMMER BAR

[samuelsons]

Re: Genocide and the Government Plan For A New Frontier

The American Heritage Dictionary; Second College Edition definition of genocide is “The systematic, planned annihilation of a racial, political, or cultural group.

It is hard to believe that in the year 2004 the current US Government administration is endorsing and employing this form of annihilation on minorities, subgroups and minorities of subgroups. Plus, not only in the United States, but the administration is expanding their HIV/AIDS clinical trials to other countries throughout the world. The administration’s master plan to get their “Global House in Order” is designed to wipe out groups of people either on a “fast track” or a slow death. The HIV clinical trials is their “window of opportunity” to control and torture the lives of innocent individuals in and outside of the HIV clinical trials. These volunteers are offering their own physical health to help with fight the war on HIV/AIDS but the government is abusing their power to cause an enormous amount of pain and suffering on the volunteers. It truly is a diabolical and hate based plan and must be stopped immediately!

The first example, is a clinical trial detailed in a Statement titled “RV144, An Ongoing HIV Vaccine Efficacy Trial In Thailand”located at http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/Newsroom/Releases/rv144.htm . This clinical trial says; “On Sept. 29, 2003, the U.S. and Royal Thai governments jointly initiated RV144, a clinical efficacy trial to evaluate a novel HIV vaccine strategy commonly referred to as “prime-boost.” The main objective of this large-scale, Phase III trial is to determine if combination vaccine prevents HIV infection; secondarily, whether it controls HIV if infection occurs.” First, a “prime-boost” definition as defined in the NIAID Vaccine Glossary located at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/Glossary.htm as; “prime-boost: in HIV vaccine research, administration of one type of vaccine, such as a live-vector vaccine, followed by or together with a second type of vaccine, such as a recombinant subunit vaccine. The intent of this combination regimen is to induce different types of immune responses and enhance the overall immune response, a result that may not occur if only one type of vaccine were to be given for all doses”.
The NIAID Vaccine Glossary definition of “live-vector vaccine” is “A vaccine that uses a non-disease-causing organism (virus or bacterium) to transport HIV or other foreign genes into the body, thereby stimulating an immune response to foreign products. This type of vaccine is important because it is particularly capable of inducing CTL activity. Examples of organisms used as live vectors in HIV vaccines are canarypox and vaccinia”.

This clinical trial in Thailand uses the canarypox HIV vaccine to carry HIV into the body. The second type of vaccine in the Thai clinical trial used recombinant DNA technology which is defined in the NIAID Glossary as “the technique by which genetic material from one organism is inserted into a foreign cell in order to mass produce the protein encoded by the inserted genes.”

The protein they are mass producing is an HIV protein and the use of two vaccines for one person is to ensure an aggressive HIV antibody response. This mass production of HIV protein is being produced and harvested from unsuspecting volunteers. This newly harvested HIV protein is used to make new strains of HIV. Then to start the process all over, but now with another strain of HIV thrown into the mix.

This HIV vaccine trial is the “World’s largest” per a NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) New Release located at http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/releases/tipsheetaids.htm ; “On Monday, July 8, scientists representing an international research collaboration will brief the press on the largest community-based, preventive HIV vaccine trial ever planned. The trial, a collaboration between scientists from the United States and Thailand, will be the first large-scale test of prime-boost vaccine regimen, in which two different vaccines are administered to stimulate a more powerful immune response. The study will be conducted in Thailand, will involve 16,000 volunteers, and is expected to last for more than five years.”
The “more powerful immune response” is because of dual HIV proteins being injected from the two HIV vaccines used in the Thai clinical trial of canarypox HIV vaccine and the recombinant DNA vaccine. Antibodies to the two HIV vaccines induced an infection of HIV that creates a “more powerful immune response”. This is what is going on in the clinical trials involving thousands of volunteers.

Another News Release titled “AIDS Vaccine Advocates Call For Expanded Efforts In The Wake Of NIH Announcement On HIV Vaccine Effort” located at http://www.avac.org says “New York - The AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (AVAC) today responded to an announcement by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that it would not be able to run a clinical trial of immune responses with the canarypox HIV vaccine candidate. “We are very disappointed that immunology results do not meet the HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) criteria to move ahead with a correlates trial,” said Chris Collins, Executive Director of AVAC.”
This News Release continues with “The NIH also announced today that the highly regarded HIV vaccine research program based at the Department of Defense would be funded by NIH. “HIV vaccine research benefits from a diversity of efforts,” Collins said. “For years the DOD program has been engaged in directing research that well complements other efforts in government and industry. With support from the Thai government they intend to move forward with a more empirically based canarypox efficacy trial, which AVAC fully supports. As this program moves forward its accomplished military research team deserves to retain its scientific and operational independence.” “Given these events, government and industry must now intensify their efforts on HIV vaccine research and development,” Collins said.” “Today’s news must not become an excuse to abandon support for clinical trials or trial sites around the world. Ultimately, a series of large scale human trials of multiple candidate vaccines will almost certainly be necessary. It is essential that we continue to improve the clinical trials infrastructure needed to run these trials where the need is most intense, particularly in resource-poor countries where infections rates continue to be very high.”

The high rate of infection is only increased when these clinical trials come strolling into an area. Their so-called infrastructure is complete with tainted vaccines full of various strains HIV ready to infect and further infect unsuspecting volunteers. And to cause a “more powerful immune response” with two HIV vaccines that in some instances cause “super-infections”. These “super infections” caused by the genetic engineering of HIV have been scheduled to cause even more pain and suffering on an already HIV ravaged area induced by the “clinical trial network”. This “network” includes, but not limited to, the US Government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation . By all means let’s “move forward” with the HIV Canarypox and DNA Recombinant Vaccine HIV blasts and open the doors to the clinical trials..

In fact, the control rate of intentional infection or “prime-boosting” is detailed again in the Statement “RV144, An Ongoing HIV Vaccine Efficacy Trial In Thailand” located at http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/Newsroom/Releases/rv144.htm and says; “Prime-boost is expected to induce a constellation of immune responses including CD8+ T cells, CD4 T cells and antibodies in 25 to 100 percent of volunteers, depending on the laboratory measurement employed.”

The “laboratory measurement employed” is again another manipulation by the government to achieve the results they want. The results they want are to HIV infect and/or further HIV infect as many volunteers within subgroup, minority or minority of a subgroup as possible. The fact is the prime-boost probably infected closer to100% of the volunteers.
AVAC is funded in part by the US Government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Again this News Release is located at http://www.avac.org

“AIDS Vaccine Fails to Show Efficacy in Thai Trial” is another article pertaining to the Thailand trial. This article is located at http://www.avac.org The total number of volunteers involved in the Thailand study per the “Tipsheet: XIV International AIDS Conference, Barcelona, Spain, July 7-12, 2002" located at http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/releases/tipsheetaids.htm on page 3 is 16,000 the AVAC “today expressed disappointment that the second Phase III trial of an AIDS vaccine did not show efficacy of the vaccine, AIDSVAX. The trial tested AIDSVAX among 2,546 injection drug users in Thailand.” “We are disappointed that AIDSVAX alone did not prove effacious in this population in Thailand,” said Chris Collins, Executive Director of AVAC. “This trial was not a failure because it tested a product and produced a result. More efficacy trials like the Thai AIDSVAX trial need to be run”.

This vaccine will never prove to be “efficacious” since the vaccine is designed to do just the opposite of providing relief to a “subgroup” or “minority.” The number of volunteers expected for the Thailand trials is 16,000 and the 2,546 injection drug users represent a segment of the planned clinical trials scheduled in Thailand. and maybe more importantly an individual.

The article continues with “The Thai trial tested AIDSVAX B/E, a version of the vaccine modeled after two strains of HIV - the “B” strain and “E” strain - both found in the Thai population”. This sentence is not only an example of how they induce HIV infections but also exemplifies their goal of separating and segregating a “population” from society.

There currently are different strains of the HIV virus, but the reality is HIV can infect anyone and does affect everyone regardless of geographic location, education, socioeconomic class, race/ethnicity and sexual orientation. But, if the government continues to mutate and genetically engineer the HIV virus to design more HIV strains for the million of different subgroups and populations throughout the world then we all be entering a whole new World of social order.

The “Tipsheet: XIV International AIDS Conference, Barcelona, Spain, July 7-12, 2002" again located at http://www2.niaid,nih.gov/newsroom/releases/tipsheetaids.htm says on page 3; “Using a system that allows rapid screening of all HIV gene products, researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital have examined each of those gene products for its ability to initiate CTL responses. The investigators discovered that all HIV proteins can serve as CTL targets.” (The CTL - Cytotoxic T lymphocytes - basically play a major role in the stability the immune system) However, The next sentence says “The Gag proteins, which make up the major components of the virus core, are the most frequently targeted, but the anti-HIV immune response is highly variable in different groups of people.”

Then if that statement holds true; all injection drug users would have a different immune response than the immune responses of all men who have sex with men. How can that be? What if an injection drug user would move from Thailand to Wall Street and becomes an investment banker and realizes he is gay? Then what? Does the HIV strain change across the ocean, does it change with a paycheck or the change in sexual orientation? Or, do you offer him/her the real vaccine - the real cure for HIV/AIDS and the global house disorder?

A report titled “Are There Too Many “Me Too” Products In The Pipeline?” which is part of the “What Can The Federal Response To Bioterror Teach Us About Finding An AIDS Vaccine” located on page 43 at the AVAC website www.avac.org says “There are also signs of an optimization-oriented approach in the pre-clinical pipeline. For example, IAVI (International AIDS Vaccine Initiative) and its partners in the Neutralizing Antibody Consortium (NAC) are designing a study that will test several envelope antigens in small animals and move the most promising candidates into parallel monkey studies. Such efforts are valuable, but it remains to be seen whether these first steps will translate into cooperation, particularly in areas where there is more room for individual products to advance to market. It’s not surprising that the most sportsman-like collaboration in the field today centers around one of the toughest problems. Would the NAC, or any other similar entity, exist if there were plausible data to move neutralizing antibody-inducing products into human trials? Maybe. The AIDS vaccine field is not mercenary and collaboration has helped the field arrive where it is today.” In reality, the only thing the bush administration sees, besides trying to rearrange DNA cells and societal populations, is money. For example, again in the AVAC report titled “Are There Too Many “Me Too” Products in the Pipeline?” at www.avac.org . Page 41 says “Suddenly, the AIDS vaccine field had a new technology on its hands - one that was heat stable and easy to modify, as well as being, at least theoretically, cheap and easy to manufacture. DNA vaccines enabled vaccine developers to add and subtract different pieces of HIV genetic material and learn about the different immune responses induced by different regions of the virus.

So what they are saying is DNA HIV Vaccines are cheap and the genes are easy to manipulate. Therefore, they can achieve the results they want and control whatever subgroup, minority, or minority of a subgroup within a population by compromising their immune systems all at one low price. What a deal! Furthermore, the article says (also on page 41) “Today, however, concerns about low yields, high costs and the need for high doses of current formulations are adding a dose of reality. These developments have heightened the need for optimization studies that ask, for example whether a given adjuvant makes a difference, by inserting the same genes into several different formulations and testing them. A similar approach could be taken with genes; either to identify the optimal genes to include in a vaccine or to determine the best way to package desired genetic material. Today the field may be paying the price for having bypassed some of this work. Many people are now admitting that they are at a bit of a loss when it comes to determining whether one DNA vaccine is better than another.” In addition on page 42 of the report, Peggy Johnston, Assistant Director for AIDS Vaccines at NIAID, surveys the pipeline, and she says she doesn’t “see enough of what might look like repetition.” “If resources were not limiting, we would like to have more duplication. There are so many variables to consider. Ideally, we’d like the answers to all those questions in Phase 1 trials,” she says. Johnston and others envision a suite of Phase 1 trials that are variations on a theme. “Diversity for the sake of diversity is not going to work,” Johnston said. “There’s got to be coordination to make sure that we address different questions.”

Is Peggy Johnston saying if “diversity for the sake of diversity” is not going to work with DNA HIV vaccines then why not just duplicate the same DNA HIV vaccine. Or is Peggy describing a pipeline of the same HIV Vaccine but with each HIV vaccine having a separate manufacturer and vaccine name?

Finally, also on Page 42; “In an ideal world, many candidates would advance into Phase 1 trials and the results from these studies could be used to determine whether a given candidate is a
me-too or a breakthrough.” The footnote at the bottom of page 40 of the AVAC report says a “me-too” candidate vaccine is “*A note on terminology; the phrase “me too” can mean different things to different people. From an FDA perspective, “me-too” can refer to compounds that are structurally and chemically similar to the point that a compelling rationale may be available for issuing separate marketing approvals without duplicating test data. In this article, “me-too” is used in a looser sense, to refer to AIDS vaccine strategies based on similar, or identical concepts.”

These are the people that are managing and running our government. Would you trust your health to an organization that has not a clue? The bush administration has a diabolical plan in process and that plan is currently being kept secret.

To give an example of the enormous deceit and lies running rampant in the clinical trials, is another AIDSVAX clinical trial detailed in a Consensus Statement titled “AIDSVAX Fails to Protect; VaxGenis Claims of Efficacy in Black and Asian Participants are Misleading and Premature” and located again at the AVAC website at www.avac.org . This article says “The undersigned Community-Based HIV/AIDS organizations are deeply concerned by today’s presentation of data from the phase III clinical trial of VaxGen’s HIV vaccine candidate, AIDSVAX. While the overall result demonstrates a clear and disappointing lack of efficacy, VaxGen has chosen to spotlight several subgroup analyses that were not part of the statistical evaluation described in the original trial protocol. Specifically, the company claims that the vaccine showed an efficacy rate of 67% in people categorized demographically as Black, Asian or “Other” and an even greater efficacy rate of 78% when results in Black participants were analyzed separately. The term “efficacy” to VaxGen means just the opposite. The term “efficacy” to VaxGen means HIV infection “success” rate in the clinical trials. This high clinical trial HIV infection rate is due to VaxGen canarypox HIV vaccines and their recombinant HIV vaccines being administered on unsuspecting volunteers. The Consensus Statement continues with “We fear that VaxGen has deliberately emphasized these putatively positive findings (on CNN Financial News Network, VaxGen CEO Lance Gordon described them as a (“marvelous result”), while failing to emphasize that they are based on very small numbers of infections in a limited sample of participants. This may serve the commercial interests of the company, but it does a great and profound disservice to the HIV- affected communities who must now struggle to make sense of the press stories that the VaxGen release has generated.”

The fact several subgroup analyses were not a part of the statistical evaluation is a deceptive manipulation of the results of the entire clinical trial. The fact the omission targeted Blacks, Asians and “Others” is another violation. Plus, if the results were “marvelous” than why were they omitted? The fact is VaxGen HIV vaccinia are extremely infectious, and does infect people with HIV. The entire VaxGen clinical trials are a sham, and thus, many more unsuspecting volunteers have been needlessly infected with HIV. This is truly a humanitarian nightmare and affects all of society. The Consensus Statement concludes with “While the desperate need for an HIV vaccine is clear, especially among the under served communities that bear the brunt of the pandemic, hope cannot take flight on the gossamer wings of dubious subgroup analyses”.

These government endorsed clinical trial sites are filled with deceit and the manipulation in various shapes, sizes and forms and can be found anywhere from the volunteer to the gene.
And yes, it does begin at the top with the directives from the White House down to the Department of Defense and then to ground zero; the clinical trial.

An NIAID News Release dated Monday, Feb. 25,2002 titled “NIAID Phase III HIV Vaccine Trial to Determine Correlates of Protection Will Not Proceed / Phase III Trial in Thailand to Determine Efficacy Will Be Supported by NIAID through a Combined NIAID-D0D Program” located at http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/releases/phase3hiv.htm says “The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC) of the Department of Defense (DoD), support a broad, comprehensive HIV/AIDS research and development program.” “On January 4, 2002, the White House Office of Management and Budget directed the transfer of oversight and management for the DoD HIV Research and Development Program of USAMRMC to NIH. NIAID, which has the primary responsibility for HIV/AIDS research within the NIH, will assume responsibility for this program beginning October 1, 2002.

Whatever was transferred, it is clear the Department of Defense now controls and oversees all HIV research and development. The news release continues with “USMRMC’s experience conducting international drug and vaccine development and testing and their established collaborative ties in many parts of the world will enhance NIAID’s expanding international efforts. In turn, USAMRMC programs will benefit NIAID,s vast HIV/AIDS pre-clinical research program, which is integrated into NIAID’s comprehensive HIV/AIDS research effort.

Over twenty years into the HIV/AIDS crisis and still no publicized HIV/AIDS vaccine, and now the White House and the Department of Defense are dictating to an already fragile HIV/AIDS environment to go International. For what? For infrastructure and manufacturing of destructive HIV vaccines that obviously infect and further infect volunteers and in turn causes years of pain and suffering. This is not good.

However, they are going forth with a vengeance. The NIAID News Release continues with “Most recently, NIAID provided funds to USAMRMC to renovate and construct specialized facilities designed for HIV vaccine production. The two Institutes are also collaborating on a large international clinical trial of IL-2 in people infected with HIV. By formally integrating the experience, expertise, research infrastructure and resources of both Institutes, the merger will ensure the U.S. government HIV research effort is comprehensive, efficient and coordinated”.

It does not take “large-scale” clinical trials with massive numbers of humans and a finely tuned infrastructure to test a vaccine. The sub-groups and your definition of a “population” to catagorize various virus strains within designated groups people, living in different parts of the world is crazy. This innately segregated, discriminatory, and painfully cruel. Besides the fact, that within those set parameters and “guidelines” of how you view people and the world is an immense amount of hate. To intentionally infect innocent volunteers with HIV when all they want to do is help is genocide.

The NIAID News Release continues with “Until recently, NIAID and USAMRMC had proposals underway to begin large-scale, phase III HIV vaccine efficacy trials in the near future. Both trials were to test similar “prime-boost” vaccine combinations (a canarypox-virus-based primer vaccine followed by gp 120 subunit booster vaccine), although the vaccines were slightly different, the trials were designed to answer different questions and were to take place in different populations. During fiscal year 2003, NIAID will support the current USAMRMC research program, including its planned prime-boost vaccine efficacy trial in Thailand scheduled to commence in 2002.” This is the same Thailand “efficacy trial” as detailed above.
The News Release continues with “However, NIAID will not proceed with a three-arm phase III HIV vaccine efficacy trial, known at HVTN 501, which was under consideration. That decision, made by NIAID and HVTN leadership, in consultation with Aventis Pasteur and VaxGen, the manufacturers of the vaccine candidates, was based on recently learned preliminary immunogenicity results of a phase II trial (HVTN 203) of its prime-boost candidates.
The NIAID HIV Vaccine Glossary definition of “immunogenicity” located at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/Glossary.htm is “the ability of an antigen or vaccine to stimulate immune responses.” Once again, another NIAID definition for inducing an HIV infection.

The News Release continues with “HVTN 203 is designed to further examine the safety and immunogenicity of two experimental HIV vaccines, the canarypox-virus-based vaccine known as ALVAC-HIV (vCP1452) and a gp120 subunit vaccine known as AIDSVAX B/B-2, given alone or in combination. HVTN was predicated on volunteers in HVTN 203 achieving a
pre-determined level of CD8 cellular immune response as measured by a newly developed ELISPOT assay. That information would help determine whether the level of cellular immunity is correlated with vaccine-induced protection against HIV. Antibody response in HVTN 203, although not evaluated, is expected to be at the same high rate as observed previously in studies of this combination and of AIDSVAX alone. Preliminary analysis of data from HVTN203 demonstrated that the percentage of volunteers with a detectable ELISPOT signal would likely be too low to provide a valid immune correlates analysis in HVTN 501. Thus, it would not be scientifically sound to proceed with HVTN 501 as currently designed.”

The “newly developed ELISPOT assay” can be configured to detect antibodies at many various levels, and thus even though they say in one sentence the immune response is “expected to be at the same high rate as observed previously in studies of this combination and of AIDSVAX alone” they can also say “preliminary analysis of data from HVTN203 demonstrated that the percentage of volunteers with detectable ELISPOT signal would likely be too low to provide a valid immune correlates analysis in HVTN 501. Because they have control over the ELISPOT HIV Test and can calibrate to any level with any “control subjects” to fit any “modality of target population” in any way simply by adjusting the signals for HIV antibodies. However, there are volunteers walking around thinking they are HIV Negative, when in fact, they have been infected with HIV from one of these clinical trials. That is how they can induce a 25% to 100% immune responses as previously mentioned in “Statement” titled “RV144, An Ongoing HIV Vaccine Efficacy Trial In Thailand” located at http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/Newsroom/Releases/rv144.htm

The News Release continues with “The results from the HVTN 203 and the decision not to proceed with HVTN 501 does not mean the vaccines are not efficacious, because it is not known which immune assay may eventually be shown to correlate with protection in humans.” (An assay does not protect against HIV, but it is being manipulated as a testing device for HIV in humans.) The news release continues with “For this reason, the NIAID fully supports the plans of USAMRMC and its colleagues in Thailand to evaluate the efficacy of a similar vaccine combination, ALVAC-HIV (vCP1521) and AIDSVAX B/E, which both incorporate envelope antigens circulating HIV (CRF_AE_01) in Thailand.”

Again, “For this reason” the NIAID is comfortable with the fact the HIV testing device
or “assay” will allow for normal HIV infection rates to be documented for the clinical trials by testing “negative” for HIV antibodies when in reality there is an HIV infection. Plus, since “behavior” is an issue with the government for the sub-groups, minorities and minorities of sub-groups, it is easier to place blame on the individuals “behavior” rather than the HIV vaccine induced infection. And, depending on the severity of the HIV strain injected via a vaccine, the results of any adverse reactions could feasibly not show for years. Thus, making it easier for the clinical trials to hide the fact they are infecting volunteers. Unfortunately, the volunteer is the one who pays the ultimate price.

The NIAID HIV Vaccine Glossary definition for
“ALVAC-HIV” located at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/Glossary.htm is
“a genetically engineered HIV vaccine composed of live, weakened canarypox virus (ALVAC) into which parts of genes for non-infectious components of HIV have been inserted. When ALVAC infects a human cell, the inserted HIV genes direct the cell to make HIV proteins.
These proteins are packaged into HIV-like particles that bud from the cell membrane. These particles are not infectious but fool the immune system into mounting an immune response to HIV. ALVAC can infect but not grow in human cells, an important safety feature.”

ALVAC itself can not grow, but the “budding” HIV injected into the volunteer often grows and infects and can lead to AIDS.

The News Release continues with “Because HVTN 203 was designed to address other important questions, HVTN 203 will continue to completion so final data can be collected and analyzed by the end of 2002. Additional data from HVTN 203 will not likely reverse the decision not to proceed with HVTN 501 as designed. However, additional data will provide important information about the safety, immunogenicity and the timing of the prime-boost combination.”

The HVTN 203 used the same vaccines as scheduled for HVTN 501, so the fact remains, human volunteers were used to induce immunogenicity using the same combination of canarypox-virus-based vaccine known as ALVAC-HIV and a gp120 subunit vaccine known as AIDSVAX B/B, given alone or in combination. Plus, the USAMRMC in their attempts to deceive designed a new trial called HVTN 026 using the same vaccines.

This fact is further detailed in the News Release saying “NIAID and the HVTN will continue to study the ALVAC-HIV (vCP1452) vaccine.” HVTN 026 is evaluating the safety and immunogenicity of that vaccine and a gp120 MN vaccine in populations outside the United States.

Additionally, a trial designed to evaluate high doses of ALVAC- HIV (vCP1452) is ongoing (HVTN 039) and a trial of that vaccine and a lipopeptide (HVTN 42) is pending. Results from HVTN 203 and other studies and discussions with stakeholders at domestic and international sites will help guide decisions regarding the future development and testing of canarypox HIV vaccine candidates.”

So whatever they want to call their trials both lethal vaccines are being used. The News Release concludes saying “NIAID acknowledges the commitments of Aventis Pasteur and VaxGen to the development of an HIV vaccine and their continued involvement in the trial to assess the efficacy of their prime-boost vaccine strategy in Thailand. NIAID will continue to support research and development to advance these products.”

Therefore, the issues pertaining to immunogenicity of the clinical trial HVTN 501 and the discussion of discontinuing further studies or phases of the trial due to the high rate of immunogenicity was really not an issue. They simply did clinical trials regardless of the HVTN 501 trial of the two vaccines (ALVAC and AIDSVAX). However, they just simply changed names for the trials. They probably still are doing studies in clinical trials of canarypox-virus-based vaccines known as ALVAC and a gp120 subunit vaccines known as AIDSVAX in clinical trials. Besides, there are so many similar vaccines in the “pipeline” it really does not make a difference.

In fact, the number of new strains of HIV and vaccines makes it necessary for the government to create a “Mapping Guide” for the vaccines along with the genetically engineered HIV strains and the “populations” to target.

This information can be found in the “Minutes of Meeting” of The National Advisory Allergy and Infectious Diseases Council (NAAIDC) Meeting dated September 29, 2003 where Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director of The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), presided as Chairman. The Minutes of this Meeting can be located at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/facts/minutes/0903min1.htm On page 16 under the heading;
“HLA Typing and Epitope Mapping to Guide Vaccine Design”: “The purpose of the program is to guide the design, development, and evaluation of HIV vaccines by supporting the acquisition of HLA and related data. It aims to better understand both on an individual and on population levels what shapes HIV evolution and escape from immune control, toward improving vaccine design. The first contract was awarded in May 2001, to study clade b infected non-caucasians in the Americas and non-clade B individuals in South Africa. It has identified 17 new CTL epitopes to date. A second award was signed in July 2003 for sites in Peru, C and Thailand.
“The committee voted to approve the proposal.”

A press release dated June 19, 2003 from the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (AVAC) titled
“Medicines Control Council Begins Phase I Clinical Trial of South Africa’s First AIDS Vaccine” located at http://avac.org says “The vaccine is the first anywhere made with the
C Clade virus. Most experimental AIDS vaccines have been made with the strain of HIV circulating in the United States rather than in developing countries, where the majority of HIV infections are occurring. The product, manufactured by AlphaVax Inc., of Durham, N.C., uses virus-like particles to deliver HIV genetic material to human cells. It was jointly developed by South Africa scientists and researchers at the University of North Carolina. It is to be tested among 96 uninfected volunteers, half in South Africa and half in the United States. The joint trial will begin first in the U.S., probably in July, and then start in Johannesburg and Durban, South Africa.” “The viral particles that will be used as vectors to deliver the vaccine are made of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEE) which infects horses.”

Since the lethal HIV vaccines viruses are being distributed around the world, the bush administration has devised a new version of informed consent.
An International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) Report titled “Gathering of Regulators from Southern Africa Tackles Vaccines and Microbicides” located at http://www.iavireport.org/Issues/0103/gatherinsgafrica.asp or http://www.iavi.org says on page two “The regulators also expressed concerns about treatment of trial participants, including standard of medical care, prevention education and informed consent forms, which often contain exhaustive catalogues of potential side effects and adverse events, are too long and complex for local needs.”
Not only is the government creating more lethal HIV strains and viruses to add to their already lethal HIV vaccines, but the government and manufacturers want money. This is another reason they are advocating infrastructure for vaccine manufacturing.

A report from the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) October 2002-November 2002 6(6) titled “Accelerating Development of Bioterrorism Vaccines: An Interview with Philip Russell” located at http://www.iavireport.org/Issues/1102/philrussell.asp or http://www.iavireport.org . says in the interview; “It’s striking how many ways there are to accelerate vaccine development when there’s enough push. Do you think some of this will spill over onto AIDS vaccines?” Philip Russell’s reply; “I hope we’ve learned things that are generalized in terms of driving programs faster. It all comes down to money in the end. If you have enough to guarantee a large first buy, then you can provide the incentive for a company to move faster. And if the developer is willing to accept risk, there are ways of short-cutting the usual process- for example, manufacturing at risk, as we’ve done, and doing things in parallel rather than serially. The huge question with an HIV vaccine is how much risk to take before you have solid information on efficacy. When do you invest in scaling up and manufacture? Actually there are two risks. One is if you do a Phase III trial, prove efficacy and then it takes two years to scale up and manufacture. That’s a terrible scenario. The other risk is that you manufacture the vaccine but the Phase III trial bombs so you’ve blown a lot of money.”

The interview with Philip Russell also asks the question; “Do you think that advance purchase commitments like these would also be an incentive for AIDS vaccine developers?” Philip Russell’s answer; “Yes. For anthrax, and for all the accelerated development programs, we’re including promises of a substantial initial purchase. So even if there’s more than one company involved, the companies are assured of at least a certain size market. To the extent that they see it as big enough to justify their opportunity costs, they’ve bitten.”

Dr. Phillip Russell, per the interview report, “has been senior advisor in the US government’s scaled up program to stockpile vaccines against the most threatening bioterror agents, and to develop a new generation of safer fast working products. The program sits within a newly created Office of the Assistant Secretary of Public Health Emergency Preparedness in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).”

In addition, again at the“Minutes of Meeting” of The National Advisory Allergy and Infectious Diseases Council (NAAIDC) Meeting dated September 29, 2003 where Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director of The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), presided as Chairman located at; http://www.niaid.nih.gov/facts/minutes/0903min1.htm ; says on page 17 under the heading “Concept Review: Office for Policy in Clinical Research Operations - Dr. Fishbein DAIDS - wide Clinical Trials Site Monitoring and Training Program”: “The contract permits DAIDS (HIV/AIDS department of the NAID and the NIH) provide monitoring and training its clinical sites throughout the world, as required.

The scope covers all DAIDS-funded clinical research units - more than 900 sites in 41 countries involved in approximately 200 protocols with more than 40,000 subjects”. “Discussion focused on the need for flexibility, and creativity in terms monitoring a wide range of trials conducted in very different regions of the world.”
“The committee voted to approve the concept.”

Then on page 18 under the heading “Concept Review: Biostatistics Research Branch - Dr. Gezmu Statistical Methods in HIV/AIDS Research”: “The purpose is to stimulate innovative research in statistical methods to advance the study of HIV/AIDS vaccines therapies and pathogenesis. “It was suggested that innovative statisticians researchers knowledgeable in the design of clinical trials be paired to try to come up with new paradigms for clinical trials that will help guide the decision making process, hopefully using smaller sample sizes.”
“The committee voted to approve the concept.”

Using statistics in clinical trial design and new paradigms for clinical trials is to further lethal vaccines and their segregation and discrimination themes used throughout the clinical trials.

Then on page 19 under the heading “Discussion of Scientific Priorities and Integration - Drs. Lehrman and M. Johnston” and says; “There are several challenges in positioning trials along the continuum of approaches that might be taken; this can be thought of as a series of trade-offs that must be made such as”:
“Optimal” therapies cost effective and deliverable interventions”
Slower, resource intensive investigation “quick and dirty”
Randomized Controlled Efficacy Trials Community Based Trials
Individual family focused
Domestic international “agendas”
Long-term clinical outcomes surrogate markers

The “Minutes of Meeting” continues also on page 19; “Vaccines: With regard to vaccines, unanswered questions remain with regard to whether clade and HLA or other genetic traits significantly affect the protective ability of a vaccine.”
How can genetic traits protect a vaccine? Sometimes the truth comes out in the most unusual places. Its all about the vaccines and the sub-groups and minorities targeted with these destructive and lethal HIV vaccines.

Continuing on page 20 is “Other Prevention Interventions” and one of the issues described is “Behavioral interventions, individual, group and community”.
The only behaviors need changing are the high risk behaviors displayed at the clinical trials when unsuspecting volunteers are intentionally infected.

Also on page 20 is the heading; “Keeping Infected Persons Healthy” says “Questions that are as applicable in a developing setting as they are in the US are:
“When to start ART; with what, and when to switch”
“Trade-offs of early or deferred intervention”
“Issues of adherence, conservation of classes of drugs, and cost-benefit for society”
“Resistance and salvage”
“Immune preservation or restoration”
“Coinfections and concomitant medications”
“Tuberculosis”
“Hepatitis: B, C, and GBV-C”
“Malaria”
“Natural products and how those might interact with ART”
“Reduce and control complications of disease and therapy”
“Simplify and make sustainable diagnostics used in detecting infection and treating and monitoring disease, and deliver care.”

Everything from “Trade-Offs”, “Cost Benefit for Society”, “Salvage”, “Coinfections”, “Malaria”, “Natural Products”, to “Control” and “Making Diagnostics” is a mixed bag of bad. The Coinfections is an area designated for their mad scientists and their attempts to control volunteers
health through HIV vaccines with further infecting HIV Positive individuals.

Then under the heading “Other suggestions of where integration might occur”: includes a statement saying “Studies of acute infection likely will impact all areas”.

Again, the “acute infections likely impact all areas” is the coinfecting with an additional HIV virus through the HIV vaccine administered at the clinical trials. This coinfecting and gene engineering with everything from bovine bacteria to encephalitis is murder. When will it stop?

Another article titled “Fauci to Present AIDS Vaccine Update at Philadelphia Meeting” located at http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/releases/fauci-philly.htm says on page 3 says “A number of studies suggest that a vaccine that does not prevent HIV infection, but slows the course of the disease may not only benefit vaccinated individuals, but could slow the dynamics of the HIV epidemic by lowering viral load in infected individuals and thereby reduce transmissibility of the virus”, says Dr. Fauci

Can you believe the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases would promote a vaccine for HIV/AIDS when after over twenty painful years battling HIV/AIDS would even consider saying “a vaccine that does not prevent HIV infection” is beneficial? This is to promote the concept of a controlling HIV infection in an individual and thus controlling the individual for whatever reasons they deem necessary. With just the right formula of their prescribed concoction of viruses, bacteria they can achieve their predetermined formula for quality of life standard for that particular individual.

Again, it is about the bush administration desire to control or eliminate sub-groups or particular “populations”. In fact, it was Daddy bush that began the reign of terror in HIV clinical trials. In an article titled “Clinical Research on HIV Vaccines” located at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/clinrsch.htm on page 3 says “In December 1992, NIAID launched the first Phase II HIV vaccine clinical trial. Earlier trials enrolled uninfected people at low risk of HIV infection and primarily sought data on safety.”
The new 1992 Daddy bush first phase clinical trial; “ That trial includes uninfected volunteers with a history of high-risk behavior, injection drug use, multiple sex partners, or sexually transmitted diseases. Participants were counseled repeatedly to avoid any behaviors that put them at risk of HIV infection. Follow-up for this trial is almost completed.” So george jr. is following what his father started in1992.

The “fact sheet” on HIV Vaccines then says (in regards to george jr. theory); “The most promising candidate vaccines then move into Phase III or efficacy trials, enrolling large numbers of HIV-uninfected people whose behavior places them at risk for exposure to the virus.” “An efficacy trial can involve thousands of volunteers and take at least 4 years to complete.”Again this fact sheet on “Clinical Research on HIV Vaccines” is located at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/clinrsch.htm

Another article titled “NIAID Releases The Jordan Report: Accelerated Development of Vaccines” says on page 3 “The challenge for the next few years is to rationally prioritize the plethora of vaccine candidates for human clinical testing and to design the necessary trials and infrastructure.” This is completely out of control!

The “HIV Infection in Minority Populations” report located at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/Minor.htm says; NIAID’s AIDS research agenda includes conducting clinical trials that address the specific needs and concerns of minority populations, ensuring that minority patients have access to all clinical trials and to the latest information on AIDS treatment and prevention. “In addition, the Research Centers in Minority Institutions and the AIDS Clinical Trials Infrastructures in Minority Institutions are major programs to enhance basic and clinical HIV research performed at minority institutions.”

The dangerous and lethal clinical trials aggressively target market minorities. What better way to recruit unsuspecting volunteers than to enter their community centers and talk lies about new HIV vaccines. There should be laws against that kind of behavior. Once you enter a government HIV clinical trial you are setting yourself up to be HIV infected or further infected, years of follow-up and possible years of debilitating infections. Not only is the government target recruiting in social settings, but they are entering community health centers to directly implement their “studies and therapies”.

For example, The “HIV Infection in Minority Populations” report continues saying “The CPCRA is a network of community-based health centers and clinics that support clinical research in community-based health centers and clinics that support clinical research in community settings. The network conducts large comparative studies that examine how to use available therapies more effectively as well as the long term consequences of different treatments. Currently, CPCRA trials are underway in 17 cities at 18 units. In 2003, 3,513 people participated in CPCRA studies. Of those, 46 percent were African American, 16 percent Hispanic, and less than 1 percent Native American or Asian/Pacific Islander.”

What “population group(s)” comprised the remaining 37% of the 3,513 people that participated in CPCRA trial study or maybe they were purely caucasians and therefore not necessary to include in the statistics of the “minority” populations. Or maybe these “minority populations” are the ones that are included in the area of “consequences of different treatments?” Who knows?

The article continues saying “The HVTN is a global network of clinical sites that evaluate preventative HIV vaccine in all phases of clinical trials. They allow for studies that examine differences in HIV diversity and genetic background, all of which may prove crucial to developing an effective vaccine for use around the world.”

The government has made a practice of making HIV come alive complete with diversity and background. The only integration the government is concerned with is the integration of the HIV virus into “diverse populations.” Not only is this man-made genetically engineered HIV diversity devastating and running rampant throughout the minority and sub-group based clinical trials, but because of these forced clinical trials, the devastating effects are now seeping into the “diverse communities.”

To support this fact, the article says “Through close collaborations and education outreach programs with communities where vaccines will be tested, the HVTN hopes to enroll a diversified population in its clinical trials. This will ensure access and representation of populations most affected by and vulnerable to HIV spread.”

HIV simply does not discriminate. Period. The government can put into words any way they want, but the fact remains; HIV can infect anyone at anytime in any geographical location and does affect everyone! And to intentionally infect entire communities in the futile attempt to changing a communities behavior is absurd. What is a community behavior anyway?
The government has their HIV priorities upside down! It is not about dividing, separating, power, political interests, and infrastructure, but about an infection that is curable and controllable. The government has redesigned the focus into something innately cruel and inhumane. It has taken on a life of its own and now the HIV battle includes people and governmental organizations with agendas that are deplorable and devastating.

The government is now implementing, again per the “HIV Infection in Minority Populations” article; “Research Centers in Minority Institutions and the AIDS Clinical Trials Infrastructures in Minority Institutions are major programs to enhance basic and clinical HIV research performed at minority institutions.”

Another example of discriminatory and harmful practices, are statements made in the March/April Newsletter of the Office of Minority Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services article titled HIV Impact; “Prevention for Positives Reducing Further Transmission of HIV/AIDS” says “The standard information often is not relevant,” said Jeff Parsons, associate professor and co-director, Center for HIV/AIDS Educational Studies and Training, Hunter College. “For example, prevention messages are often very gay-centered; men who have sex with men (MSMs) do not identify as gay or bisexual so this information, essentially, is completely lost on them.” This is the attitude of the government. If you are openly gay then you are lost!

The article continues saying “In addition, Parsons, who is studying secondary prevention efforts in African American, Latino, and White HIV positive MSMs who are alcohol abusing or dependent, has found that a critical component of secondary prevention efforts within communities of color is the need to address issues in a non-judgmental and non-confrontational tone.

The label “White HIV positive MSMs” is separating and dividing and only serves to further segregate and discriminate against someone living with HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS has its own set of stigmas and to add further discriminate and separate is cruel. However, this is the mind-set of the government and exemplifies the disseminating goals of the clinical trials.

In addition the “Procedural Guidance For Implementation Of Safety Counts” a CBO Program Announcement RFP 04064 of the Department Of Health and Human Services “Description Of Safety Counts” says; “Safety Counts is a cognitive-behavioral intervention to reduce HIV risks among drug users and specifically targets active crack cocaine and injection drug users who are at very high risk for HIV/STD infection.”

To specifically target active crack cocaine and injection drug users within a group of drug users is discriminatory. Then to say certain drug users are more high risk is further creating problems not only among drug users, but classifying HIV risks in general is discriminatory since HIV infection can happen with one encounter. But hey, HIV and all of the ramifications that are compartmentalized and separated according to the government, needs their own set of abuses applied. To many abuses and not enough compartments.

The CBO Program of the Department of Health And Human Services has a “Procedural Guidance For Implementation Of The SISTA Project - A Peer Led Program To Prevent HIV Infection Among African American Women”; RFP 04064. The “Description Of SISTA” says “The SISTA Project - or Sisters Informing Sisters About Topics on AIDS – is a social skills training intervention aimed at reducing HIV sexual risk behavior among African American women at highest risk.” “SISTA applies both the Social Cognitive Theory and the theory of gender and power. According to the Social Cognitive Theory, people need information (HIV risk-information), training in social and behavioral skills, and knowledge or norms to apply risk-reduction strategies. A change in behavior is dependent upon self-efficacy, self confidence, and outcome expectations.

How is judgment made on “outcome expectations” when the “outcome expectations” or “end results” of some of the clinical trials are predetermined and causes pain and suffering and in some instances death? The only behavior that needs careful observation and correctional methods applied (prison time) are the individuals at high risk for causing great societal harm and devastation including those ordering the lethal clinical trials!

“The Procedural Guide for Implementation of the SISTA Project” continues saying; “The theory of gender and power is a social structural theory that accounts for gender-based power differences in male-female relationships.” “It examines, by gender, the division of labor and the distribution of power and authority within relationships and gender-based definitions of sexually appropriate conduct”. “In addition, the theory considers the impact of a woman’s willingness to adopt and maintain sexual risk-reduction strategies within heterosexual relationships as it pertains to her lack of power, her commitment to the relationship and her role in the relationship.”

The gender and power social structural theory is very biased. These theories are being brought to communities as behavior prevention methods, and thus are being processed into the community. However, this information is warped and not in accordance with society thus causing more confusion regarding issues of HIV/AIDS. The focus should be HIV/AIDS not twisted theories of power and authority!

Plus, the CBO Program of the Department of Health and Human Services RFP 04064 is a
“Procedural Guidance For Implementation Of Many Men, Many Voices” This says “Many Men, Many Voices (MMMV) is a six or seven session, group level HIV/STD prevention intervention for gay and bisexual men of color adapted from Behavioral Self-Management and Assertion Skills intervention (now called Partners in Prevention) developed by the Center for AIDS Intervention Research (CAIR) in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin. This intervention has been packaged by CDC’s Diffusion of Effective Behavioral Interventions (DEBI) project and information on obtaining the intervention training and materials is available at www.effectiveinterventions.org . “It was adapted and tailored using the strategies outlined in the “Procedural Guidance”, to address behavioral influencing factors specific to gay men of color including cultural/social norms, and values and sexual relationship dynamics. The adaptation, tailoring and implementation of this intervention were done in partnership with Men of Color Health Awareness (MOCHA), People of Color in Crisis (POCC) and the Center for Health and Behavioral Training (CHBT).”

The psychiatric services allotted for the people described as acronyms should instead be utilized to assess the insanity of the government’s “norm”. Is it normal to view people as behavioral science projects when again, it is HIV/AIDS that needs to be brought to the fore-front not the color of a person’s skin or their sexual orientation or the perceived behaviors the government associates with these “populations”
!
In addition, the government has goals for the implementation of the CBO programs. The “Procedural Guidance For Implementation Of Community Promise” is detailed in the CBO Program Announcement RFP 2003-–00895 of the Department Of Health And Human Services. The “Description Of Community Promise”; “Community PROMISE is a community-level STD/HIV prevention intervention that relies on the outreach work of peer advocates from target community to deliver role model stories to members of the target population. Peer outreach is the main vehicle of delivery for the intervention, and the work of peer advocates is one of the core elements of the intervention. Community PROMISE is an acronym for Peers Reaching Out and Modeling Intervention Strategies. This intervention has been packaged by CDC’s Diffusion of Effective Behavioral Interventions (DEBI) project and information on obtaining the intervention training and materials is available at www.effectiveinterventions.org “

“Community PROMISE is adapted by each community and thus can target a wide variety of high risk populations, including injection drug users, their sex partners, people living with HIV, sex workers, non-gay identified men who have sex with men, high risk youth, and others. Community PROMISE has used role model stories to disseminate many types of messages that address the prevention needs of different populations. The prevention messages in role model stories can be used to encourage peers to seek HIV counseling and testing services, partner counseling and referral services, and other prevention and treatment services. The impact of Community PROMISE extends beyond the individuals who are involved in the intervention, changing behavior within a community by influencing attitudes, beliefs and norms through social networks within those communities. Community PROMISE is grounded in several behavioral theories, including the Stages of Change model.”
“The Key Characteristics are crucial activities and delivery methods for conducting an intervention, which may be tailored for different agencies and at-risk populations to meet the needs of the target population and ensure cultural appropriateness of the strategy.”

Key characteristics of Community PROMISE are:

• Discussing the appropriateness of the intervention and necessary program resources with stakeholders
• Networking with other agencies and community organizations to avoid duplicating efforts, to elicit support and cooperation, and to find referral sources
• Forming a community advisory board to foster community commitment to the project and to develop a plan for accessing at-risk community members
• Assessing the community to develop a clear understanding of the composition of the target population, to identify specific risk behaviors and the contexts in which they occur, to discover the meaning of risk practices to the population, and to learn what members of the population believe are appropriate and relevant risk-reduction messages
• Reviewing recent epidemiologic data
• Interviewing agency staff and members of at-risk populations
• Conducting community mapping and focus groups specifically for this assessment
• Identifying the most prevalent stage(s) of change among at-risk populations for various risk reduction practices
• Assembling the information and preparing a comprehensive report
• Using community assessment information to decide on a specific target risk-reduction behavior
• Recruiting members of the target population (e.g., current or former commercial sex workers) or credible outreach staff to be peer advocates
• Training peer advocates for 1 to 3 hours on program goals, HIV/AIDS, and use of role model stories
• Establishing a system for maintaining advocates’ commitment
• Recruiting, screening, and interviewing community members who are members of the local target population and who are preforming behaviors to avoid HIV; their safer sex decisions will form the basis for role stories
• Writing and locally pre-testing brief (400 words or less) role-model stories to address the target population’s targeted risk behavior based on examples available in the intervention kit.
• Including in role-model stories relevant and realistic circumstances, the person’s initial stage of change, motivator, action step, resolve challenge, and positive consequences of making a particular behavior change
• Having peer advocates distribute condoms, lubricants, and/or bleach kits along with the role-model stories
• Having each advocate distribute role model stories and risk reduction supplies to 10 to 20 peers each week
The tactics used in recruiting and target marketing sub-groups, populations or at risk populations are tools to initiate the control process which would eventually, if all works to their plan, result in the manipulation of people’s health to control individuals and ultimately entire communities and societies. Part of the reconstruction of the governments new world order is to eliminate “undesirables” whether they are injection drug users, commercial prostitutes, MSM, MOCHA, POCC, minorities, or any “other” person, persons, or group of persons deemed as a problem. Their scheme to enter communities on the tails of an HIV/AIDS epidemic to initiate behavior modeling using community members is the exact type of use and abuse mentality taking place in the clinical trials. It is sad when our government is the enemy with the misunderstanding that security is paramount. We must walk on egg shells whether positive or negative to safe guard our own health, as well as our own individual lives, as if it depended on it?
It is very clear, the government is promoting minorities and sub-groups for their lethal clinical trials.

“The United Nations Global Compact”; Learning Forum article written by Gavin Power titled;
“Shaping Attitudes: The Media and Globalization” says “The media sector plays a crucial role in shaping public attitudes and perceptions around globalization, sustainable development and corporate citizenship. According to a comprehensive study released this year (“Good News & Bad: The Media, Corporate Responsibility and Sustainable Development”), media understanding - and, most importantly, sustained intelligent coverage - of these issues is a necessary precondition for real progress. However, there exists a major disconnect: while these issues are arguably the most important of our time, many media watchers - and media representatives themselves - say that the press is generally abysmal at covering critical - but “slow burn”- issues, instead opting for sensational events and “headline - grabbing” news stories.” “For example, the media-sector study revealed that many media appear to be missing one of the biggest stories of our times, that of the progressive undermining of global ecosystems - with profound social and economic consequences. The assumptions is that if the issues are real, we will have time to adapt.” “There is a trend towards increased coverage of the corporate responsibility movement by media - some leading journalists are beginning to show interest in the “triple-bottom-line” agenda.

A government clinical trial titled “Daily Tenofovir DF to Prevent HIV Infection Among Sex Workers in Cambodia” located at http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00078182?order=14
says “At the of 2002, HIV infection rates among Cambodian sex workers ranged from 14.8% to 28.8%. Tenofovir DF is a nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) that was licensed for the treatment of HIV-1 infection by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in October 2001. This randomized clinical trial will determine if daily oral 300 mg dose of tenofovir DF is safe and effective in preventing HIV - 1 infection. This is a collaborative study between the University of California, San Francisco, the University of New South Wales, and the Ministry of Health of Cambodia.” “Nine hundred and sixty HIV uninfected female sex workers in Phnom Penh will be enrolled in the trial.” “Participants will be evaluated for rates of infection, adherence to drug regimen, and changes in risk behaviors. All participants will be monitored throughout the trial for side effects and toxicity. Participants will be involved in the study for 14 months.”

Why would 960 uninfected female sex workers be given a single therapy nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) when the drug (Tenofovir) approved by the FDA is used for HIV positive individuals in combination with other anti-HIV drugs. If single drug therapy does not work well with HIV positive individuals, then why would it be given to 960 uninfected female sex workers as a single dose preventive drug? Plus the statement saying “Participants will be evaluated for rates of HIV infection, adherence to the drug regimen, and changes in risk behaviors”are variables used to manipulate and validate their high rate of clinical trial infection of HIV.

The rates of HIV infection may be due in part to the false sense of protection from an experimental HIV drug may be the indirect result leading to an HIV infection. The “Adherence to the drug regimen” is not clear since many reasons may be involved. The “changes in risk behaviors” is to safe guard the government from the fact there is a high rate of infection in the clinical trial, and thus blame is shifted to behavior rather than the trial. In fact, the “Inclusion Criteria” for this trial is volunteers must “Report receiving money or gifts for vaginal or anal