HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2007/12/29

‘Twas only yesterday (“HIV DISEASE”, 28 December) that I remarked on HIV’s ability to act psychically or magically by way of its “bystander” mechanism. Immediately came this confirmation:

“HIV-Positive Women Have Higher Risk of Bone Fractures (POZ, 28 December):

HIV-positive women face a greater risk of bone fracture than HIV-negative women, despite . . . [being] similar in terms of age, bone mineral density, family history of osteoporosis, calcium intake and other factors known to affect bone health.

26 percent of the HIV-positive women had a history of a fragility fracture—a broken bone that occurs as a result of a fall from standing height or less—compared with just 17 percent of the HIV-negative women. This result was statistically significant, meaning that the difference was too great to have occurred by chance.

Dr. Prior’s team theorized that the difference in fracture rates, despite equal bone mineral density, may be due to the effect of HIV infection within the bone in a manner that does not show up on standard measures of bone health.”

* * * * * *

Missing from the report is such necessary information as whether the women had been HIV-positive when they suffered the fractures. As Kary Mullis points out in Robin Scovill’s must-see film The Other Side of AIDS, “infection” by “HIV” is the contemporary equivalent of possession by the devil; once possessed or infected, anything unpleasant that happens must be owing to that evil power.

For non-believers in Satanic possession, the thing to remember is that “HIV-positive” is not a sign of infection by a deadly pathogen, it is a sign that the immune system is reacting to something. What it’s reacting to may be trivial and temporary or serious.

“HIV-positive” signifies different things in different people.
—In those who inject drugs, it is probably a direct result of the physiological action of those drugs or of their debilitating “side” effects.
—In gay men, the testimony of many “long-term non-progressors” or “elite controllers” is that being HIV-positive is compatible with a healthy life provided one behaves in a reasonably sensible manner.
—When it comes to groups of people like those in the study cited above, who seem to be comparable in all manifest ways, yet some of whom test HIV-positive and others do not, it is a reasonable inference that the HIV-positive ones are experiencing some higher degree of physiological stress and may therefore have a more dubious prognosis; a search would be warranted for unsuspected ailments or genetic predispositions or earlier traumatic events.
For example, among people with tuberculosis, the HIV-positive ones have a poorer prognosis (“TB biggest threat to HIV positive”; “HIV, tuberculosis jointly kill 300 Peruvians every year” ). In one of the earliest studies in Africa, the poorer prognosis of HIV-positive youths led researchers in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to confuse correlation with causation (“One may realize the association between HIV infection and death even without believing that HIV causes AIDS”, Dondero and Curran, Lancet 343 [1994] 989-90).

The relationship of HIV-positive to physiological stress is evident when one compares reported rates among low-risk groups:


For all groups except the top three, the rates of testing HIV-positive seem to correlate with the average state of fitness or good health: repeat blood donors have been screened for fewer health problems than first-time donors; active-duty military have been screened for fewer health problems than applicants for military service; runaway youths and people attending various clinics are likely to have some noticeable health problems.

For the top three groups, something else seems to be in play. Tuberculosis apparently is very likely to produce a positive “HIV”-test, as is the abuse of drugs. As already said above, for gay men, HIV-positive may not signify a serious challenge to health. My correspondent Tony brought to my attention some time ago the intriguing possibility, with considerable evidence to support it, that in many cases HIV-positive among gay men may be an outcome of disturbances of the intestinal flora; that’s been mooted by other people as well, for example by Vladimir Koliadin and at NotAIDS! (3 February 2007, “AIDS or Candida albicans?” ).

Among other than these “high-risk” groups, “HIV-positive” seems to mark the possibility of a poorer prognosis for some undetected reason, not because some devilish retrovirus is secretly at work: HIV-positive women are more likely to break bones, and it would be good to find out why—and especially whether the fracture perhaps came before the positive HIV-test and caused it, for there have been a number of reports showing a higher rate of HIV-positive tests among victims of trauma (references cited at p. 85 in The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).

Yet one must not link HIV-positive inevitably to a poorer prognosis, because the physiological reaction represented by “HIV-positive” is strongly influenced by individual factors and such attributes as sex, age, and race: for instance, within a group matched for all other known variables, people of African ancestry test HIV-positive 5 or more times–sometimes very many times more–than others.

Testing HIV-positive means that certain proteins or bits of RNA or DNA are present. What consequences that may have need to be explored in each individual case.


  1. jonathan said

    Other reasons “HIV-positive” women (and I bet men, as well) may have more bone fractures could be the (ab)use of drugs that either weaken bones (prednisone, etc.), or those drugs that cause problems with balance (psychotropics). Consider this anecdotal, but I’ve no doubt that research would confirm that patients with HIV diagnoses are prescribed these drugs at a much higher rate than the rest of the population.

  2. Michael Geiger said

    As you remarked, we do not know if the HIV tests came before or after the bone fractures. For all anyone knows, Henry, the HIV tests had sprung as positive on women, and perhaps men as well, who had previously broken bones. The antigens showing up could very well be due to an immune system reaction to the broken bone or the healing of the fracture all by itself.

  3. Khurram Aziz said

    Can you defend your arguments against the attacks of Nick Bennett?Have you ever engaged with him in debate?

  4. hhbauer said

    I’ve seen some of his comments, and judge him to be as closed-minded and dogmatic as any of the other sponsors of the website. To my mind, the material posted at that site is short on substance and awfully high on invective and character assassination.

    My own view was arrived at after I personally looked at all the published CDC data from HIV tests, saw incredible regularities in them, and concluded that what these HIV tests are detecting cannot be a sexually transmitted agent. I do not believe that anyone can look at those data and reach a different conclusion.

    I’ve published my analysis, fully documented with literature citations. So really my only interest in “engaging” with defenders of the orthodoxy would be with someone who has gone over all those data and can argue on that basis either that the regularities are not genuine (I have a letter from the CDC saying they are, by the way) or that such regular trends are compatible with a sexually transmitted agent even though one does not see such regularities with undoubtedly sexually transmitted agents like gonorrhea or herpes.

    Moreover, any defender of the orthodoxy needs to explain how a transmissibility of about 1 per 1000 acts of unprotected intercourse can produce the epidemics that are supposedly all around.

    The AIDStruth people put out a barrage of material on all sorts of subsidiary questions like, “If HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, why do antiretroviral drugs make some people feel better?”; and about CD4 counts, etc. But my central point is this: If what HIV tests detect is not sexually transmitted, then the whole HIV/AIDS case collapses, and one has to look for answers to all those subsidiary questions from a new point of view. But the first issue to resolve is, “What do the HIV-test data reveal? What flaws can you point to in my analysis?”

  5. MacDonald said

    Khurram Azziz,

    Your questions bring up an important point. You ask if Prof. Bauer has ever debated Dr. Nick Bennett. Alas, Mr. Azziz, it’s not easy to get to debate the illustrious Dr. Bennett these days. Ms. Maggiore, against whom Dr. Bennett and the AIDStruth gang are waging continuous smear campaigns, has repeatedly invited Dr. Bennett to public debate. But it seems the good doc. is too busy saving little children’s lives to come out from under his desk:

    If you prefer to believe it’s not only stage fright that confines Dr. Bennett’s attacks, as you so rightly call them, to sneer and smear missiles launched into cyberspace from the safety of his mother’s basement, an alternative but no less ridiculous explanation for his reluctance to debate can be found here:

    We will not:

    Engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes.

    According to the founders of, it is the mark of mature and responsible scientists to avoid all scientific debate with anybody who disagrees with them.

    So, Mr. Azziz, if you’re waiting for Dr. Bennett to enter into fair debate with Prof. Bauer or any other knowledgeable HIV/AIDS rethinker, I wouldn’t advise you to hold your breath.

  6. Frank said

    Nick Bennett had an interesting little debate with Jeffrey Dach a couple of years ago. Have a look. It’s a good example of what usually happens when questions regarding HIV/AIDS are open to honest debate. You can see it over at the AIDS Wiki: Descent into Viral Load Internet Hell.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: