HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

IS TUBERCULOSIS AN APHRODISIAC?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/01/04

According to HIV/AIDS dogma, one can catch “HIV” from one’s mother or, as adults, from blood, dirty needles, or sex. The last is the most usual way.

Therefore, if identifiable groups of people are consistently HIV-positive at a high rate, something about those groups bespeaks a propensity for much unsafe sex.

After HIV had been announced as the cause of AIDS, and “HIV” tests had been introduced, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) carried out “sentinel surveys” of various population groups: college students, blood donors, hospital patients, prisoners, prostitutes, runaway homeless youths, people attending clinics for family planning and STD and abortion, and more.

It turned out that people at tuberculosis (TB) clinics often tested HIV-positive at a much higher rate than any other except the high-risk groups of drug injectors and gay men—as high as 58%, according to data published by the CDC (Dondero & Gill, “Large-scale HIV surveys: What has been learned?” AIDS 5, suppl. 2 [1991] S63-9). TB patients were a third high-risk group, testing HIV-positive more often even than people attending clinics specializing in sexually transmitted diseases or those visiting specifically HIV clinics—in other words, TB patients are more likely to be HIV-positive even than people who suspect they might have contracted a venereal disease or HIV:

groupcomparison.jpg

Either TB patients are inveterate injectors with HIV-infected needles, or they are inveterately and unsafely promiscuous; and whichever is the case, they don’t know that those practices render them liable to catch a sexually transmitted infection.

That seems unlikely, to put it mildly. But that’s what one has to conclude if one obeys HIV/AIDS dogma. If one is free of that dogma, however, it surely takes very little consideration to realize how absurd it is to believe that having TB links tightly with promiscuous sex or drug injecting.

There is a far better explanation: something about having TB stimulates a physiological response that shows up “positive” on an HIV-test, a FALSE POSITIVE in terms of “HIV”. Indeed, Christine Johnson listed TB as one of the many conditions that delivers a positive HIV-test. The Perth Group has adduced much evidence that testing HIV-positive indicates nothing more than some level of oxidative stress. Empirical support for this general view includes the high rate of HIV-positives found in trauma victims: emergency-room patients and in autopsies (references at p. 85 in The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).

Under the latter explanation, the more seriously ill a TB patient is, the more likely to test HIV-positive. Under HIV/AIDS dogma, the fact that the more seriously ill TB patients test HIV-positive more often has to be interpreted as the more ill they are, the more they have promiscuous sex—which makes less than no sense.

The tendency to test HIV-positive is a marker of the degree of illness. Mainstream HIV/AIDS dogma blithely turns connections between TB and HIV-positive upside down. It asserts that because “HIV” damages the immune system, therefore any given condition—malaria, TB, worm-infestation, malnutrition—is worse in the presence of HIV, and thereby even becomes an “AIDS-defining” condition.

In light of this preamble, consider a few of the news reports that express alarm, sometimes to an hysterical degree, over “co-infections” with HIV and TB:

* * * * * *

“Reported HIV Status of Tuberculosis Patients — United States, 1993–2005” (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 56(42), 26 October 2007, 1103-1106:

“Patients with both TB and HIV infection are five times more likely to die during anti-TB treatment than patients who are not HIV infected (CDC, unpublished data, 2003).”

Of course! They are more ill to start with, that’s why they tested HIV-positive.

“TB is an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)-defining opportunistic condition.”

Balderdash. TB was around long before there was HIV or AIDS. TB became counted as an “AIDS-defining” disease only because TB patients so often deliver a FALSE POSITIVE HIV-test. (The emphasis here on false-positive should not be taken to mean that I think there are any HIV tests that are NOT false positives insofar as detecting a retrovirus is concerned.)

* * * * * *

“HIV/TB—a ‘forgotten’ co-infection that threatens the world” (Destination Santé, 30 décembre 2007):

“One third of the 40 million carriers of the AIDS virus are also infected with tuberculosis. This fact is all the more worrying as it is in sub-Saharan Africa, already badly hit by HIV/AIDS, that these co-infections are on the increase.”

Balderdash. One third of the people said to be “carriers of the AIDS virus” probably test HIV-positive only because they have TB.

“The AIDS pandemic has increased the number of cases of TB worldwide by about 15%.”

How, one asks, could such a calculation be made validly?

“By depressing our immune defences, HIV increases thirty fold the risk of developing TB after contact with the bacillus.”

Upside-down again: The rate of TB among HIV-positive people is 30 times that among HIV-negative people because having TB makes one likely to test HIV-positive.

“As a result, half of all the new cases of TB declared each year in sub-Saharan Africa are in patients already infected by the AIDS virus.”

What were they tested for first? Are HIV-positive people tested for TB more often than others? Anyway, the general level of health in sub-Saharan Africa is not as good as it might be, and people in poor health are both more likely to contract TB and to test HIV-positive in any case. (Moreover, sub-Saharan Africans are genetically prone to test HIV-positive, see chapters 5 to 7 in The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory.)

* * * * * *

“HIV/TB co-epidemic rapidly spreading in Sub-Saharan Africa, report says” (Kaisernetwork.org [Washington, DC] 2 November 2007):

“deaths from HIV/TB coinfection are five times higher than deaths from TB alone . . . . About 90% of people living with HIV/AIDS will die within months of contracting TB”
because HIV-positive MEANS they are more ill—WITH TB!— than those who don’t test HIV-positive.

“about half of all new TB cases in sub-Saharan Africa occur among HIV-positive people”
because people already in poor health are more likely to contract a further infection.

“HIV/TB coinfection also could be fueling the increase in drug-resistant strains of TB”:
Here is the usual mainstream alarm-generating speculation. HIV makes anything and everything worse and must be exorcised even if people die in the process (ARE INTESTINAL WORMS GOOD FOR US? . . . , 30 December 2007; DRUGS OR FOOD? , 25 December 2007; FIRST: DO NO HARM!, 19 December 2007; WHAT HIV DRUGS DO, 15 December 2007).

* * * * * *

“TB killing HIV positive people”, 26 February 2007
“A rare drug resistant strain of TB found in South Africa and 26 other countries world wide is killing HIV positive people. . . . The strain of TB is known as XDR-TB, and was first identified in 52 out of 53 HIV positive patients who died in South African hospitals.”
Or: Those people who have this most serious strain of TB are more likely to test HIV-positive.

“3800 AIDS researchers have assembled to try to sort out what to do to combat the strain of TB that is killing HIV positive people across the world. The World Health Organization estimates that each year 27 thousand new cases of XDR-TB, are reported resulting in 16 thousand deaths.”
And the hysterical bandwagon rolls on, and the World Health Organization doesn’t hesitate to project estimates of alarming proportions—estimates based on the most slender of evidence.

* * * * * *

“HIV, tuberculosis jointly kill 300 Peruvians every year” (www.chinaview.cn, 4 December 2007):

“Around 300 Peruvians die every year of tuberculosis worsened by acquired immune-deficiency syndrome (AIDS) [emphasis added] . . . . Tuberculosis speeds the process that turns human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV) infection into full-blown AIDS . . . . Every year Peru reports nearly 36,000 tuberculosis cases. Official figures estimate 30,000 people are infected with HIV in Peru, but non-governmental organizations put the figure at nearly 100,000.

How do we know that HIV is worsened by TB? Because correlation proves causation?

Well, of course correlation doesn’t prove causation, even if the CDC doesn’t understand that (e.g., p. 194 in The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).

As to the numbers: 300 out of 36,000 annual cases of TB die? That’s only about the normal death rate in an averagely healthy population. (Of course, the media report may have misplaced a zero somewhere.)

In any case, note once again the freedom exercised by “non-governmental” organizations—activist groups furthering their own agendas—to multiply official HIV/AIDS figures by 3 or 4.

* * * * * *

And so on and so forth. HIV/AIDS theory is blatantly wrong in its view of how HIV-positive relates to having TB. But mainstream researchers, official institutions, and the media and other pundits fail to see the absurdity of accepting that people who are suffering from a serious illness like TB or also likely to be actively pursuing lots of unsafe sex—more actively, the sicker they are.

One Response to “IS TUBERCULOSIS AN APHRODISIAC?”

  1. umber said

    If the Kremer’s hypothesis is right (excess of nitric oxide), it is simply likely that TB patients are HIV positive because of their treatment, which consists mostly of isoniazid

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