HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Archive for the ‘HIV/AIDS numbers’ Category

Race, HIV, media pundits

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/03/09

People carrying black-African genes test “HIV-positive” at far greater rates than do people without that genetic ancestry. HIV/AIDS theory “explains” that by postulating greater rates of careless “not-safe-sex” promiscuity and infected-needle-sharing drug injection. Thereby HIV/AIDS theory postulates significant genetic determination of behavior, which in other contexts is dismissed as pseudo-science.

Moreover, actual observations and studies have repeatedly shown that the facts vitiate that proposed “explanation”: Africans and African-Americans indulge in risky behavior at lower rates than do white Americans (pp. 77-9 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).
The conclusion is inescapable: HIV/AIDS theory is radically wrong about how “HIV-positive” is transmitted.

But that inescapable conclusion continues to escape mainstream practitioners and researchers and such media pundits as Donald G. McNeil Jr. of the New York Times (Poor Black and Hispanic men are the face of H.I.V.):

“The AIDS epidemic in America is rapidly becoming concentrated among poor, young black and Hispanic men who have sex with men”
NO. There’s nothing recent or rapid about it. The racial disparities have always been there (Chapters 5 & 6 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).
Furthermore, it is black WOMEN who are most affected compared to others, 20 times more likely to be “HIV-positive” than white women, whereas for males the ratio is (“only”) 7.

“Nationally, 25 percent of new infections are in black and Hispanic men, and in New York City it is 45 percent”
Yes, of course, because it’s blackness that contributes overwhelmingly to testing “HIV-positive”. Hispanics in New York are primarily of black Caribbean-African stock, whereas West-Coast Hispanics are largely non-black, of Latin-American stock. Therefore national-average rates of “HIV-positive” among Hispanics are lower than East-Coast Hispanic rates of “HIV-positive” (pp. 57-8, 71-2 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).

“Nationally, when only men under 25 infected through gay sex are counted, 80 percent are black or Hispanic — even though they engage in less high-risk behavior than their white peers” [emphasis added]; “a male-male sex act for a young black American is eight times as likely to end in H.I.V. infection as it is for his white peers. That is true even though, on average, black youths in the study took fewer risks than their white peers: they had fewer partners, engaged in fewer acts of sex while drunk or high, and used condoms more often”.
So McNeil is even aware of this conundrum which falsifies the central axiom of HIV/AIDS theory, namely, that HIV is transmitted as a result of risky behavior. Yet he does not follow this statement of fact with any explanation of this paradox which contradicts and falsifies mainstream views.
Instead, McNeil passes on without comment the usual meaningless weasel-words about some unspecified “intervention”:
“Critics say little is being done to save this group, and none of it with any great urgency. ‘There wasn’t even an ad campaign aimed at young black men until last year — what’s that about?’. Phill Wilson, president of the Black AIDS Institute in Los Angeles, said there were ‘no models out there right now for reaching these men’”.
What conceivable use could any models be, when it’s acknowledged that these supposedly at-high-risk people already practice less risky behavior than the no-high-risk white folk?
Still, of course there’s no harm in asking for more money even in absence of any clue what to do with it:
“With more resources, we could make bigger strides”.

What the mainstream says about the high rates of black “HIV-positives” is pitifully, woefully inadequate; it misses the whole point. It suggests that although their behavior is less risky, black folk have “other risk factors. Lacking health insurance, they were less likely to have seen doctors regularly and more likely to have syphilis, which creates a path for H.I.V.”
But it’s yet another counterfactual canard that syphilis and other STDs make it more likely that someone will “contract” “HIV”, i.e. become “HIV-positive”: there is simply no correlation between incidence of STDs and of “HIV” (pp. 31-5, 109 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).
As to insurance, what is the evidence that having health insurance makes for lower rates of being or becoming “HIV-positive”? This is simply hand-waving bullshit* emitted because no sensible explanation can be offered.
As to seeing doctors regularly, what is the evidence that seeing doctors regularly makes for lower rates of being or becoming “HIV-positive”? Quite the opposite, in fact: The largely white gay men who first contracted “AIDS” had mostly been seeing doctors very often because of their constant need for treatment after suffering all sorts of illnesses. Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, with a practice of largely gay clients in New York in the 1970s, had in fact warned his regular customers that if they did not change their lifestyle something drastic and awful would befall them.

And then, “Other risk factors include depression and fatalism” — What, pray, is the mechanism by which those conditions produce “HIV-positive”? Among people who are acknowledged to behave less riskily than those who are not at high risk of becoming “HIV-positive”?

Another popular non-explanation is that blacks become “HIV-positive” more often because “HIV-positive” is so much more common in the black community: It’s more common because it’s more common.

I cannot imagine a higher degree of hypocrisy, intellectual vapidity, sheer unwillingness to draw obvious conclusions from undisputed facts, than is demonstrated without fail and without end by mainstream researchers, doctors, and pundits when confronted with the plain fact that blackness makes for being “HIV-positive”.

Not that this perverse behavior is much different from behaving as though testing “HIV-positive” proved infection by “HIV” when standard authorities have long stated quite forthrightly that there is no gold standard “HIV” test, no test capable of demonstrating actual infection by “HIV”, and that the rates of false positives are inevitably high (Stanley H. Weiss & Elliot P. Cowan, “Laboratory detection of human retroviral infection”, chapter 8 in Gary P. Wormser (ed.), AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection, 2004 (4th ed.).

No technical expertise is needed to recognize the sheer unadulterated nonsense of talking about “risk factors” when the known end-result is less risky behavior. How can any number of purported risk factors be alleged to heighten risk when the facts show that the risk is lower of the only behavior that supposedly transmits “HIV”?

* Words uttered without regard to their truth — Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit, Princeton University Press, 2005.

Posted in experts, HIV absurdities, HIV and race, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV transmission, HIV/AIDS numbers, prejudice, sexual transmission, uncritical media | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »

Beware official reports: WHO “informing” about HIV in Greece

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2013/11/26

A cousin had sent me this link:

“Report: Half of new HIV cases in Greece from 2009-2011 self-inflicted to get benefits”
“A case study contained within a lengthy World Health Organization report reviewing the health inequities among European countries said Greeks may be contracting HIV intentionally in order to go on public assistance.
According to the ‘case study’ contained in the report ‘Review of social determinants and the health divide in the WHO European Region: final report,’ while suicides, homicide, and thefts increased during the Greek economic crisis, so too did the rate of HIV infection — about half of which the report says were likely self-inflicted to obtain benefits.
. . . .
‘HIV rates and heroin use have risen significantly, with about half of new HIV infections being self-inflicted to enable people to receive benefits of €700 per month and faster admission on to drug substitution programs’.”

Knowing better than to accept such second-hand accounts, I went to the WHO report itself, readily available by Googling its title. Sure enough, on p. 157:
“HIV rates and heroin use have risen significantly, with about half of new HIV infections being self-inflicted to enable people to receive benefits of €700 per month and faster admission on to drug- substitution programmes”.
But there was no source cited for this statement, even though the WHO Report boasts a total of 782 references. The references (609-611) closest to this statement did not mention the allegation.
So I started to compose this blog post.

But when I returned to the Daily Caller source to quote from it, it had been updated:
“WHO recognizes that there is no evidence suggesting that deliberate self-infection with HIV goes beyond a few anecdotal cases . . .
Media Matters notes  that the WHO’s analysis on the rate of self-inflicted HIV is likely a misrepresentation of a report on Greece that appeared in The Lancet . . . noting the possibility for ‘a few’ people to self-inflicted [sic] HIV as a way to obtain benefits.”

Indeed, the Lancet report (378 [2013] 1457-8) says, “Many new HIV infections are also linked to an increase in prostitution (and associated unsafe sex).22 An authoritative report described accounts of deliberate self-infection by a few individuals to obtain access to benefits of €700 per month and faster admission onto drug substitution programmes.22”
That reference 22 contains (p. 4) this statement:
“8. An additional factor the committee believed worth considering is the well-founded
suspicion that some problem users are intentionally infected with HIV, because of
the benefit they are entitled to (approximately € 1,400 every two months), and
also because they are granted “exceptional admission” to the Substitution
Programme. It is well-known that the Substitution Programme has a long waiting list
and that the waiting time can be over 3-4 years. Drug users with a severe chronic
condition jump the queue and are admitted in a short period of time” [emphasis in the original].

The WHO Report actually cites this Lancet article, as reference 32, in an entirely different connection. Since it was cited, it had presumably been read by someone who had a hand in drafting the WHO Report.

Many things are wrong with the way this and other official reports are generated. Many people have something to do with them — far too many people. An official report is what happens when typically unidentified staffers convert a request from on high into a document that has to meet the purposes of propaganda in support of corporate agendas and corporate self-aggrandizement. The raison d’être of a report from WHO, UNESCO, the International Panel on Climate Change, the International Monetary Fund, etc., etc., etc., is not the dissemination of useful information, it is bureaucratic self-promotion and the providing of paid employment to a host of personnel and contractors. For a lengthier disquisition together with analyses of Reports from the World Bank, UNAIDS, and the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, see chapter 8 in Dogmatism in Science and Medicine.
In the present instance, a “well-founded suspicion” that some drug addicts deliberately self-inflict with HIV became, in the WHO Report, the unequivocal statement that “about half of new HIV infections . . . [are] self-inflicted”.

WHO did issue a correction:
“In fact, what is accurate to say is that slightly more than half of the Greece’s new HIV cases are among those who inject drugs. WHO recognizes that there is no evidence suggesting that deliberate self-infection with HIV goes beyond a few anecdotal cases. The statement is the consequence of an error in the editing of the report, for which WHO apologizes.”

But this is nothing like an adequate response.
The apology is worth nothing because it accomplishes nothing, it doesn’t affect what remains in the Report. Will all copies of that Report be recalled and destroyed and a new version substituted?
Furthermore, it is obviously incorrect to blame an editing error for a statement that should never have been there in the first place. The correct information was in an article actually cited in another place in the WHO Report. To blame is the whole process by which this Report came into existence.
Among other things, that ludicrously, obviously wrong statement should have been caught by anyone who has even the most elementary and limited knowledge of the actual facts about HIV. For example, that drug addicts who share needles are less likely to become “HIV-positive” than those who don’t share needles (references at p. 86 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory); and that “HIV” is “distinctively difficult to transmit” (p. 131 in Robert Gallo, Virus hunting: AIDS, cancer, and the human retrovirus: a story of scientific discovery, Basic Books, 1991) — typically cited rates of transmission are on the order of a few per thousand acts of unprotected sex. So even if drug addicts want to contract “HIV”, it would be no easy matter for them to do so by sharing needles or practicing “unsafe sex”. On the other hand, they could always increase their chance of testing “HIV-positive” just by using drugs more intensively, because the drugs themselves can produce a positive result on “HIV” tests, as well as the illnesses that are said to characterize “AIDS”.

Posted in experts, HIV absurdities, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV transmission, HIV/AIDS numbers | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Those who don’t remember their history…..

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2013/11/04

Those who don’t remember their history apparently includes individuals like Michel Kazatchkine, U.N. Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Eastern Europe, cited in the Reuters story, “ Could concentrated HIV epidemics make AIDS unbeatable?”

“ HIV epidemics are becoming more concentrated in marginalized groups such as sex workers, drug users and gay men. . . . a U.N. expert said” .

Words fail me when these official expert envoys, and prominent news organizations, have apparently forgotten that “AIDS” and testing HIV+ was always concentrated among drug users and gay men; and among gay men, concentrated among those who abuse drugs; and among sex workers, concentrated among those who abuse drugs.

“ In MSM populations, there is no sign it has decreased,” he said. “ It has either been a stable number of new infections every year for 10 years, or it is an increasing trend. And this, in western Europe at least, is in the context of basically free and easy access to therapy and services.”

Exactly. Maybe there’s something wrong with the mainstream approach?

Posted in experts, HIV absurdities, HIV risk groups, HIV/AIDS numbers, uncritical media | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

More good stuff from Italy

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2013/11/02

I’ve recommended the Science and Democracy conferences and website  before — “Italy, a new Renaissance, and the need for slower science” (2011/07/12) and “SELENIUM: Mainstreamers again follow rethinkers as to dietary supplements” (2008/07/14).

Their third collection of essays has now been published: Science and the Citizen: Contemporary Issues and Controversies, ed. Marco Mamone Capria,, 2013, $25.99 (ISBN 978-1291446838); also available from
Of particular interest concerning HIV/AIDS is David Rasnick’s “AIDS drugs cause AIDS and death”, which contains striking documented facts, for example that even properly prescribed drugs kill 100,000 a year in the USA — and that did not consider the deaths and damages done by antiretroviral drugs. Rasnick surveys the toxicity of antiretrovirals, and provides a much-needed discussion of Immune Reconstitution Syndrome (IRS) or Immune Reconstitution Inflammatory Syndrome (IRIS) or Immune Reconstitution Disease (IRD) which had been invented to explain why AIDS patients became more ill rather than less after taking antiretroviral drugs: supposedly the immune system in reconstituting itself causes toxic inflammation through hyperactivity.

I had been aware that IRS/IRIS/IRD is a self-serving paradox, a colleague of ICL, Idiopathic CD4-T-cell Lymphopenia, a.k.a. HIV-negative AIDS, invented to protect the status of HIV as cause of AIDS. But I had not done any further reading about IRS/IRIS/IRD, so Rasnick’s article is an eye-opener. He cites 14 articles reporting the incidence of IRS in between 4 and 66% of patients receiving antiretroviral drugs, with a crudely calculated (by me) average of 28%: thus more than a quarter of people give antiretroviral treatment suffer life-threatening reactions.

My subsequent search at PubMed for more information delivered 2715 citations for Immune Reconstitution Disease, 1470 for Immune Reconstitution Syndrome, 1010 for Immune Reconstitution Inflammatory Syndrome, and 550 for Immune Reconstitution Inflammatory Disease.
On the other hand, the NIH Treatment Guidelines make no big deal about IRIS, mentioning it only as a possible outcome when patients with certain opportunistic infections receive antiretroviral treatment.


Rasnick’s article is one of five in the book’s section titled “Corporate Medicine”; the other articles are “Medicine and democracy”, “Evidence-based medicine? Wishful thinking”, “The bigger the lie — the Wakefield case”, and “Ethics, surgeons, and transplantation”.

Other sections of the book are:
Brave new science and its discontents
Experts and participatory democracy
Public opinions, official lies, and whistleblowers

and there is a concluding essay by Anthony Liversidge which describes the ambience of these Science and Democracy conferences.

There is much in this book to interest anyone who is at all skeptical about what mainstream sources and mass media promulgate.

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism, HIV/AIDS numbers | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Lessons from the “baby cure”

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2013/03/10

ABC News has an unusually well researched, insightful discussion by Sydney Lupkin of the much-ballyhooed alleged cure of an HIV-infected baby: “Experts question so-called HIV ‘cure’”.

The chief points raised are about lack of proof of infection and questions of informed consent. But I would like to point to some deeper issues in medical practice: doctors’ dilemmas and doctors’ ignorance.

“Caplan [medical-ethics specialist] and Kline [pediatric HIV specialist] said they believe Gay [the doctor responsible for the ‘cure’] had the patient’s interests at heart, and that she had the right to deviate from standard of care”.
Having a patient’s interest at heart is no more than the good intentions that, in general, pave the road to hell. Good intentions coupled with technical ignorance can have horrible consequences. Furthermore, human psychology being what it is, one’s belief to be acting with good intentions may not be well based if one suffers the usual conflicts of interest, say, wanting to demonstrate expertise.

“‘When we consider starting any medication in any patient, we always consider the risk-benefit ratio,’ Gay said during Monday’s press conference. ‘When the risk is something as serious as HIV disease, then it’s worth the benefit that you may get from preventing that disease. Even though you never want to start drugs that may cause toxicities, if the benefit outweighs the risk, you do it.’”
“Risk-benefit”, like “evidence-based medicine”, are phrases that can lull the unwary into believing that things are being done to the highest scientific standards.
But “evidence-based medicine” is a hope, a motto, an (impossible?) ideal, it is not a description of current practices, few if any of which are actually based on evidence; for example, innumerable people, are taking drugs to lower cholesterol or blood pressure and increase bone strength, yet “There are no valid data on the effectiveness . . . [of] statins, antihypertensives, and bisphosphanates” (the last, e.g. Fosamax, are prescribed against osteoporosis) — Järvinen et al., British Medical Journal, 342 (2011) doi: 10.1136/bmj.d2175.
As to “risk-benefit”, that sounds like a careful weighing of quantitative statistical data, when in practice — as in the baby-cure case — it’s no more than a subjective guess.

Ignorance about HIV/AIDS is the current “standard of care”, sadly.

For example, “transmission-reducing drugs during pregnancy . . . have been found to reduce the rate of HIV transmission to 1 percent, said Dr. Mark Kline, a pediatric HIV and AIDS specialist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. Without these prenatal preventive measures, babies have a 20 to 25 percent chance of becoming infected with their mother’s HIV”
— but those authoritative, impressive-appearing percentages are based, like all else about HIV, on tests that are simply not valid. Once more:


—— S. H. Weiss & E. P. Cowan,
 “Laboratory Detection of Human Retroviral Infection”,
 Chapter 8 in Gary P. Wormser (ed.),
 AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection, 2004 (4th ed.).

The truth is hidden in plain sight, obscured only by cognitive dissonance. Thus Kline, who gets so much right — if only the premises were not wrong — apparently has not thought seriously about the implications of the absurdities  and conundrums that pervade HIV/AIDS theory:
“‘That’s a rather surprising statistic, I think, because you think to yourself: If the mother has HIV, won’t the newborn almost certainly also have HIV?’ Kline said. ‘In fact, even in an era in which we did nothing at all, only minor numbers of infants actually acquired HIV infection.’”

Exactly. Just as this supposedly sexually transmitted disease that supposedly galloped through southern Africa and elsewhere is, in the words of Gallo himself, “distinctively [sic] difficult to transmit” (Robert Gallo, Virus Hunting: AIDS, Cancer, and the Human Retrovirus: A Story of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, 1991, p. 131);
and the officially claimed HIV+ rate in southern Africa can only be explained by postulating promiscuity so extraordinary that people could hardly have time for anything except sex and changing partners: James Chin, former epidemiologist for California and the World Health Organization, calculates that 20-40% of adults must have “multiple concurrent relationships” with several sexual partners, changing to new partners weekly or monthly, totaling to tens of different partners over the course of each year (The AIDS Pandemic, Radcliffe 2007, Table 5.1 on p. 64).

Surely the colossally mind-boggling absurdities and self-contradictions required by HIV/AIDS theory call for the most careful reconsideration of that theory; and reconsideration might bring to the fore the fact that “HIV” virions have never been isolated from patients even during so-called viremia when HIV is supposedly plentiful; and in absence of a sample of such virions, there cannot be a “gold standard” test to validate currently used tests. As Rodney Richards has pointed out, the so-called “HIV” tests are actually “AIDS” tests and have never been shown by evidence, only by official opinion, to show infection by HIV ( “The birth of antibodies equal infection”, Appendix II in Celia Farber, Serious Adverse Events, Melville House, 2006). “HIV” tests react positive when sera contain some of the things found in AIDS patients BUT  NOT  ONLY  IN  AIDS  PATIENTS  NOR  IN  ALL  AIDS  PATIENTS: several dozen conditions are capable of producing a positive “HIV” test, for instance such common diseases (in Africa) as tuberculosis (Christine Johnson, “Whose antibodies are they anyway? Factors known to cause false positive HIV antibody test results”, Continuum 4 (#3, Sept./Oct. 1996); also Figure 22, p. 83 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).

When Dr. Gay talked of “something as serious as HIV disease”, her belief was based in large part on the fact that, since the introduction of antiretroviral drugs, “HIV” is being held responsible for all the “side” effects of the drugs; for instance the mal-distribution of fat caused primarily by protease inhibitors (PIs) is often referred to as “HIV lipodystrophy”  as though HIV and not the PIs were at fault.

In the abstract I can sympathize with doctors who follow official guidelines and believe they are doing right by their patients. In practice I am appalled at the human carnage consequent on stubborn adherence to an unsupportable theory, which remains unquestioned by innumerable so-called “researchers” even as contradictions of the theory crop up all the time. And I find myself unable to comprehend the mindset of practicing physicians who continue to administer “medications” to babies even when the result is screaming and convulsions; or the mindset of doctors supervising clinical trials where the drugs are so intolerable that they have to be forcibly administered via gastric tubes. Not to speak of the fanatics who try to justify such actions.

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, experts, HIV absurdities, HIV in children, HIV tests, HIV transmission, HIV/AIDS numbers, Legal aspects, uncritical media | Tagged: , , | 3 Comments »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 109 other followers