HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

Eroding the HIV/AIDS bandwagon

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2012/11/30

The mistaken belief that a positive HIV test proves infection is one of the mainstream’s Achilles heels, in some part because so many conditions — e.g. pregnancy, various vaccinations, TB . . . — can stimulate an apparent positive. The problem is to find a venue in which this weakness can be exploited.One such venue is in a court, and here Clark Baker’s Office of Medical and Scientific Justice has been doing a lot and meeting with a lot of success. They have just announced 49th favorable outcome, for a military veteran who faced great possible penalties if convicted. Read the details at the OMSJ website.

Congratulations once again, OMSJ team!

About these ads

15 Responses to “Eroding the HIV/AIDS bandwagon”

  1. This is ideal timing. Just recently someone suggested to me that later, more accurate HIV tests would correct errors in initial testing (i.e. false positives). I was skeptical but I have to assume that all such claims are made with sincerity. This article you link to saves me most of the trouble, but I’d still appreciate your thoughts.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Karim Ghantous:
      I’ve mentioned several times the chapter, “Laboratory detection of human retroviral infection” by Stanley H. Weiss and Elliott P. Cowan, Chapter 8 in AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection, ed. Gary P. Wormser, 4th ed. (2004). It says unequivocally that there are no tests, and no combination of tests, that can diagnose HIV infection. False positives are inevitable with any test that is not 100% specific as well as 100% sensitive, and no such tests exist.
      The rate of false positives depends, among other things, on the population average incidence of is being tested for. Therefore a given “HIV-test” result must be interpreted differently according to the population group to which the tested person belongs. Thereby ot becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy that people of African ancestry, and gay men, will be said to test positive more often than others for the same quantitative test result.

  2. rob wirt said

    Henry, what do you say to people that compare you to those who deny global warming. I believe global warming is real and it seems those scientists who do not are employed by the petroleum industry in some way. How is it that the HIV/AIDS claim is suppoted by most scientists yet seems to be wrong while global warming is suppoted by most scientists and seems to be right?

    • Henry Bauer said

      rob wirt:
      For some reason your comment had been sent to the SPAM folder, sorry.
      Actually, I don’t believe that human-caused emission of carbon dioxide is adding appreciably to global warming; there is a perfectly natural and historically inevitable global warming occurring as we bounce back from the last ice age; see on my other blog A politically liberal global-warming skeptic? and my book Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth (link at the top of left-hand sidebar).
      I struggled for a long time to try to understand how modern medical science could go so disastrously wrong as it has over HIV and AIDS. Eventually I realized that if modern science were working the way it should, if modern science were reliable and self-correcting as is often said of it, then such an aberration would be inconceivable. Instead, what the mistakes about HIV/AIDS and human-caused global warming indicate is that modern science has become untrustworthy.
      In the Dogmatism book I offer historical perspective on how this happened and why, and I started my other blog to discuss that: Scientific literacy in one easy lesson; From Dawn to Decadence: The Three Ages of Modern Science; The culture and the cult of science.

      .

  3. Francis said

    I don’t think there is any doubt that the climate of the planet is changing, and I don’t think there are too many rational people who would deny this.

    However, as you point out Henry, the big question is what is the actual impact of human activity Vs the natural cycle of things? I can remember reading an old issue of National Geographic from the 60’s, as I like to buy them from Op shops to compare the state of science then and the predictions they made at that time. In it was an article that focused on the then and now occurring natural cycle of the earths warming. Missing was any mention of CO2 outputs from the industrialised societies.

    Somewhere along the line, some bright sparks have however decided to link this relatively innocuous atmospheric gas to the current dire predictions of temperatures spiraling out of control. It appears to me that there is a large buck to be made with this particular fad and I also can’t help but wonder if it is also an attempt to slow the economic rise of India and China.

    There is an arrogance within the scientific community, that given enough resources they can fix or cure anything. Perhaps they would be better informed by digging in to the earth to find seashells hundreds of feet deep and also thousands of feet above the current sea level. Clearly this earth is a dynamic planet and changing all the time, now amount of time, money or effort is going to change that. I don’t think that the Vikings who discovered “Greenland” were colour blind, it was just warmer then, and I’m sure there was a degree of panic in the society then when glaciers started growing.

    I was also under the impression that CO2 plays a fairly minimal role in atmospheric warming, but is painted as the big bogey man. Meanwhile governments are giving their blessings to the harvesting of coal seam gas, methane, which has a far greater effect on atmospheric warming conditions.

    I also object, living in Australia to the recent imposition of a Carbon Tax by the government. Every utilities bill or airline ticket now tells me how much CO2 I am releasing and am taxed accordingly. There is though, no mention of just what the government is doing with this windfall gain to offset my carbon footprint. And I fail to see how balancing a budget is going to cool the planet.

    As usual though, by using your right to question the prevailing “science” one gets labelled with that old chestnut “Denialist”, much as in HIV/AIDS, I don’t think anyone has questioned the syndrome of Immune Suppression in certain demographics. Of course though to question the single virus theory brings about an automatic “Denialist” label, and yet reading their own flawed literature in its entirety can only bring anyone to the same conclusion. They got it wrong.

    My last point which is more a rhetorical question from reading a link in a previous posting of yours. Is that “Science” has now been so thoroughly corrupted by corporate entities, that perhaps published papers in addition to the usual statistical confidence intervals should also include an “R” factor. That of course being reproductive ability.

    Cheers Henry, have a Merry Christmas, that is if you believe in it and haven’t become a Yule Tide Denialist.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Francis:
      Nice to hear from you; but rather sad to learn about the extraordinary political correctness that has popped up in Australia, I hadn’t heard about that carbon footprint calculation on airline tickets and utilities bills. Political satirists here in the USA are running out of material because the politicians keep satirizing themselves; seems like the same is happening back in what used to be my home. :(
      Re global warming in more detail, have a look at A politically liberal global-warming skeptic? on the new blog I just started that focuses on science as a whole (and will be zooming in on medical science in particular).

  4. Marco Ruggiero said

    Dear Francis, the Vikings were certainly not colour blind when the named Greenland and Iceland; nor were the island different than today. It was a precise strategic choice to led other colonizer go to the supposedly Greenland and avoid Iceland!

  5. Francis said

    Buon giorno Dr. Ruggiero,

    I was under the impression that parts of the Greenland coast were settled by the Icelandic Vikings circa 950ad, a date that coincided with the Medieval warming period. My reading on the subject is that the Nords recorded that the countryside on the coast was verdant and mild in temperature, hence the name. The Vikings stayed for about 500 years, which also coincides with the end of the warming period.

    There was an indigenous population prior to viking settlement, but I have no idea what they called their island.

    There is also ample evidence that Vikings landed on the east coast of America too, long before Columbus set sail

  6. I have two questions that involves a report that was linked to in in a comment last year. Here is the comment which showed that HIV tests were a mere 6% accurate:

    http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/%e2%80%9ci%e2%80%99m-hiv-positive-what-should-i-do%e2%80%9d/#comment-8332

    The report is ‘Quality assessment of HIV antibody testing’ – 2003 -Scoglio et al.

    First question: how exactly did the authors of this report prepare serum samples with any confidence? Does this mean that there is a third, ‘accurate’ HIV test? No, obviously not. But I don’t get what they were doing exactly – were these serum samples merely ‘HIV’ antibodies and nothing else? This, at least, is clear enough on page 1, but I want to be sure. And it would makes sense, as there is no such thing as a pure HIV isolate:

    http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/echt-ersatz-or-fake-%E2%80%9Chiv%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%9Cvirions%E2%80%9D-budding-from-a-cell-electron-micrographed/

    Second question: although I understand Bayesian analysis and its power well (though I’m not an expert) I’m not sure why specificity and sensitivity are inversely related. IOW, how can sensitivity be a measure of how expected our evidence is if PPV (positive predictive value) is true; and how can specificity be a measure of how expected our evidence is if PPV is not true? Can someone illuminate a little bit? I’m aware that these two terms do not have to be the inverse value of each other, unlike P(h|b) vs. P(~h|b) .

    I don’t want to spread around values an equation until I understand them to a reasonable degree. For reference, here’s a page which I mostly understand that explains how mammograms are about 8% accurate (hey, that’s better than HIV tests!):

    http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-intuitive-and-short-explanation-of-bayes-theorem/

    Final question: am I right to assume that nothing has changed since 2003, and that accuracy has not improved? It seems to be. BTW, Henry, I am making my way through ‘

    As a footnote, some folks are not aware that the accuracy of a binary test can be less than 50%, the assumption being that you’re either right or wrong. Of course it should be obvious how this is not logical. However, I mention this point because we are all at different levels of knowledge and experience and we should always try to uplift those who are at lower levels than we are. Well, that’s the ideal!

    I only learned about Bayes’ Theorem last year. And I have a long way to go to get up to speed with practical statistics.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Karim Ghantous:
      There are innumerable technical details in the vast literature about HIV/AIDS, but they become irrelevant once it is realized that HIV tests do not detect an infection — and the collated data in my book demonstrate that. Furthermore, at the present time it seems that about half of all the Americans said to be “HIV+” are not ill from any of the supposed consequences of HIV: have a look at the straightforwad calculation in ‘Iatrogenic Harm Following “HIV” Testing’, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 15 (#2, 2010) 42-46). SO I don’t think it’s worth the time to dig into the Scoglio article.

      There is no guaranteed 100% specific antibody test, and every test has some lower limit beyond which it cannot detect its target — to take it to the absurd extreme, one can’t detect a single molecule of antibody. So in practice, if you want to protect the blood used for transfusions, you seek to have a test that responds to anything that might be “HIV” or whatever else you’re trying to avoid, and that automatically makes the test less specific, more false positives.

      What hasn’t changed since 2003 is that HIV tests don’t detect an infectious agent that causes AIDS. Please read my book to be convinced!

  7. Henry, thanks for your article you linked to. I am flabbergasted at the nonsense that gets printed in ‘official’ documentation. I love it how, according to the SF AIDS Foundation, a positive result does not mean that “You are immune to AIDS, even though you have antibodies” and a negative result does not mean that “You are immune to HIV.” Seriously, you really need to crank up the doublethink to maximum to buy any of that.

    Anyway… I have a couple of questions. You mentioned Karri Stokely. I do believe that she died four years after she stopped taking her medication (I think after your article was published). My assumption is that the medication did enough damage to her body to shorten her lifespan. Do you agree with that? Her case is of course good propaganda for HIV/AIDS activists, no matter what the reality.

    Secondly, you quoted sources mentioning the HIV ‘infection window’. Now, it sounds like a fudge rather than a fact about nature (the equivalent of Einstein’s universal constant, or anything in physics referred to as ‘dark’). But according to my search of this blog, you did not write about it. Is this notion of an infection window worth exploring?

    • Henry Bauer said

      Karim Ghantous:
      Karri Stokely. . . . I met her at some meetings. She was a lovely person, genuine, open, public-spirited. Her photo-documented physical decline on ARVs and extraordinary recovery after going off them seems to me utterly convincing as to toxicity of ARVs. I do believe that the many years of ARVs caused irreversible damage. It’s known that ARVs cause damage to mitochondria, which are the energy centers of all cells, and this cannot apparently reverse itself.

      There’s a huge gap in knowledge about such cases, because once there’s been a positive HIV test, doctors presume that all unhealthiness stems from that, and so it remains unknown what other possible causes of illness there might be.

      Christine Maggiore is another instance where we can make plausible assumptions but cannot prove what the cause of death was — though the evidence is very strong that neither she nor her daughter died of HIV or AIDS. Like Karri, she is used as propaganda by the HIV/AIDS groupies and vigilantes, who ignore the fact that her husband and son never tested HIV+.

      Infection window: Yes, I regard this as a fudge factor, like the supposed “latent period” between infection and illness. It could be interesting to trace when this notion was first invented and what the evidence for it might be. One possible reason, which also makes drawing conclusions difficult, is that HIV tests don’t detect HIV! So I guess that HIV/AIDS researchers were puzzled by people who hadn’t tested positive at some time but later did without intervening reasons for becoming positive. But I haven’t tried to look into this.

      Talking about fudge factors: There’s also IRS, immune restoration syndrome, to explain away that some people become ill when they take ARVs and apparently get rid of the supposed virus. And ICL, idiopathic CD4-T-cell lymphopenia (low CD4 counts for no apparent reason), invented to “explain” the many cases of HIV-negative AIDS that had accumulated by the early 1990s.

  8. Thanks, Henry. If you do find anything about the infection window, please mention it. It sounds like circular reasoning of some kind.

    I do have a further question. In your article you mention that “five out of six “positive” HIV-test results” are false positives. That is already bad enough, but the calculation I cited above shows that more than nine out of ten results are false positives. It used a specificity figure of 0.969, but you’re using either 0.995 or 0.990. I suppose that accuracy has changed?

    And I wonder if there’s a figure for NPV as well as for PPV? If the NPV is high, well, that’s something at least (and it would contradict the literature you quoted from the SF AIDS Foundation).

    It’s one thing to know how to plug in numbers in an equation (heck, even I can do that, although I’m not mathematically proficient). But true understanding certainly takes time. And I’m grateful that you can spare some of yours.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Karim Ghantous:
      The proportion of false positives varies with specificity of the test and population-average prevalence of the agent to be detected.
      NPV and PPV are very rarely cited, though of course they should be.
      I’ve ranted against Wikipedia several times, but on non-controversial matters it can be quite good. In this case its articles seem sound on negative (NPV) and positive (PPV) predictive value and on calculating those and specificity:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_predictive_value

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_predictive_value

      http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Sensitivity,-Specificity,-Positive-Predictive-Value,-and-Negative-Predictive-Value

      Note in the last one the mention of a gold-standard test. There isn’t one for HIV, as acknowledged by Weiss & Cowan: Stanley H. Weiss and Elliott P. Cowan, Chapter 8 in AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection, ed. Gary P. Wormser, 4th ed. (2004)
      In essence this means that all “HIV” tests are potentially misleading. All calculations using results of presently employed tests can only yield NPV, PPV, sensitivity, specificity presuming the tests actually detect HIV as they claim to do; which we (AIDS Rethinkers, HIV Skeptics) know to be not the case.
      But even using mainstream assumptions and numbers, at least half of all people told they are HIV+ are unlikely to fall ill from any AIDS-like condition: http://www.jpands.org/vol15no2/bauer.pdf

  9. cfsboston said

    Government-recognized proof –> HIV IS NOT THE CAUSE OF AIDS.

    This would mean that people would be testing HIV+, but not really have HIV.

    “The Mycoplasma incognitus found by Drs. Garth and Nancy Nicolson has a piece of the HIV envelope, but HIV is not found inside the envelope. Instead, a mix of different bacteria from other illnesses is present. This is not something that could happen in the natural course of evolution and is proof, Dr. Nicolson believes, of biological warfare. It is something that must have been man-made!”

    http://www.ncf-net.org/forum/nicholson.htm

    One of my 9 published letters about my life with NON HIV AIDS in

    UK PROGRESSIVE, 11/20/12 –> http://ukprogressive.co.uk/the-aids-like-disease-seldom-mentioned/article20891.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 118 other followers