HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

WHAT “HIV” IS NOT: IT’S NOT SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/01/06

If one thing is certain about HIV/AIDS, it is that “HIV” is not a sexually transmitted agent.

I can be certain about that because I’ve examined the reported evidence for myself.

Not all of the evidence, of course, because no one could possibly do that; but I have gathered the published data about HIV tests in every HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); every pertinent article in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report; and hundreds of articles reporting HIV tests in JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, and other medical-scientific journals. I used PubMed to find many relevant articles and to guide me from one article to related ones.

The data represent more than 50,000,000 tests. Several social groups have been tested routinely–applicants for military service, active-duty military personnel, blood donors, Job Corps members–and the results from those groups comprise an unparalleled resource for identifying trends: unparalleled because the tests were carried out on essentially all members of those groups, so that there are none of the uncertainties associated with sampling that often leave interpretation of statistical medical and social data less than certain.

The regular trends in those data are nothing less than astonishing. Whether “HIV” tests concerned newborns or their mothers, or military personnel, or blood donors, or gay men or people injecting illegal drugs, several things are always the same:
—The geographic distribution of positive HIV tests is the same. Even though the average rate of testing HIV-positive varies by a factor of 100 or more between drug users and blood donors, within each group the geographic distribution is the same: highest in the North-East and South-East, lowest in the North Central regions, higher in the South than in the West.
So unvarying a geographic distribution across social groups is not found with syphilis, gonorrhea, or other known sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
—This geographic distribution of positive HIV tests has remained the same throughout the AIDS era: it was the same in the early 1980s as in the late 1990s. That’s certainly not like a contagious disease, and certainly not like an STD that spread across the country from New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco since the 1970s.
—Among the low-risk groups–excluding gay men and drug injectors, in other words–, the frequency of positive HIV tests varies with age and sex in the same manner in every tested group:

agevariations.jpg

With genuine STDs, it is typically adolescents who are at greatest risk, not middle-aged people; and newborns and young children are not infected with STDs at rates comparable to those among adults; yet “HIV-positive” is as common among newborns as among the most highly “infected” middle-aged adults in low-risk groups.

* * * * * *

If you have unprotected sex with someone who has gonorrhea or syphilis, your chance of catching that infection yourself is something like 50:50 (anywhere from 10% to 90%).

If you have unprotected sex with an HIV-positive person, what are the odds that you will become HIV-positive yourself?

About 1 in a 1000.

* * * * * *

Why believe what I’ve just written, when the media are full of official statements warning that everyone is at risk, that condoms should always be used, that sex is the main way that “HIV” is transmitted?

You shouldn’t believe anything just because I say so. And you shouldn’t believe anything just because others say so, either, even if they are a Director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, or because they have won a Nobel Prize or other prizes, or because they have been acclaimed for discovering something. You should believe something only if you have the good reason of having seen for yourself that the evidence supports the statements made.

One of the things I learned through doing science is that anyone can be wrong; and I learned the more difficult lesson that I myself can be wrong. I’ve been wrong through accepting what others said, and through misinterpreting data, and because there were totally unknown and unsuspected factors involved, and I’ve been wrong through just plain making mistakes because of muddle-headedness or tiredness or ignorance. So I’m wary of saying I’m certain about something, and especially wary when “everyone” knows something different.

It took me months to come to terms with the data showing that “HIV” is not sexually transmitted, and I reached the conclusion simply because there is no other way to explain the data. If you want to make up your mind about this, you may have to look at all the data for yourself. Ideally you should start from scratch, gather whatever data you can find about HIV tests, and tabulate the results by age and geography and sex and date and anything else that you think might be relevant. Then look to see whether there are any regularities to be explained.

A second-best way would be to look at my collection of the data and discussion about them, and to check my sources: make sure I haven’t misquoted or omitted, and search the literature for things I overlooked and that might contradict my analysis.

A not-very-good way to make up your mind would be to judge that I’m sincere and to trust that I’ve done what I say I’ve done. But that would be no worse than believing what you read in the newspapers, or believing that gurus in white coats are always right. In fact, believing the white coats or the media may be the worst possible way of making up your mind about anything important.

* * * * * *

From where did I get that “1 chance in 1000” for sexual transmission of HIV? I looked hard into the literature but found no study that claimed more than a few per 1000. Chapter 4 of my book, The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, http://www.failingsofhivaidstheory.homestead.com/ cites a score of publications that all arrive at about the same 1-per-1000 odds, and it cites the doctors and biostatisticians who concluded that “the transmission probabilities presented are so low that it becomes difficult to understand the magnitude of the HIV-1 pandemic” (Chakraborty et al. AIDS 15 [2001] 621-6).

I found in Robert Gallo’s memoirs an acknowledgment that HIV is “distinctively difficult to transmit” (p. 131, “Virus Hunting”, 1991).

* * * * * *

Gonorrhea and syphilis, transmitted quite efficiently at about 1 chance in 2, cause local outbreaks periodically, but they don’t bring about worldwide epidemics. With HIV/AIDS, we are being asked to believe that something transmitted 100 times less efficiently than gonorrhea or syphilis is producing epidemics all over the world. Seems like a good time to offer some more Brooklyn Bridges for sale.
Gisselquist and colleagues have published a number of articles arguing, on the basis of observed sexual behavior as well as lack of transmission efficiency, that sexual transmission cannot explain the African epidemic of “AIDS” (“Not investigating HIV riddles puts lives at risk”, Business Day [Johannesburg], 4 October 2007; “How much do blood exposures contribute to HIV prevalence in female sex workers in sub-Saharan Africa, Thailand and India?” International Journal of STD & AIDS 18 [2007] 581-588; Gisselquist et al., “HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa not explained by sexual or vertical transmission”, 13 [2002] 657-666; “Running on empty: sexual co-factors are insufficient to fuel Africa’s turbocharged HIV epidemic” ibid. 15 [2004] 442-452; Brewer et al., “Mounting anomalies in the epidemiology of HIV in Africa: cry the beloved paradigm”, ibid. 14 [2003] 144-147).

Pillars of the orthodoxy have offered specious arguments running about like this: “Sure, on average it’s only 1 per 1000, but there may be special circumstances when it’s much higher, say just after infection when the virus is replicating madly”. The sufficient but not only basis for calling that suggestion specious is that epidemics require an average, overall “reproduction ratio” appreciably greater than 1. You cannot have an epidemic unless, on the whole, on average, every infected person infects more than one other person within a rather short space of time. A score or more of specific studies, in Africa and Haiti as well as the United States, tells us that with “HIV” this does not happen.

* * * * * *

This was known long ago. Already in 1988, Anderson & May (Nature, 333: 514-9) guessed that there might be some special period of high infectiousness because the average apparent transmission rate is too low to bring about an epidemic. Reporters for the Wall Street Journal recognized in 1996, from CDC sources, that “for most heterosexuals, the risk from a single act of sex was smaller than the risk of ever getting hit by lightning” (Bennett and Sharpe, “AIDS fight is skewed by federal campaign exaggerating risks”, 1 May, pp. A1, 6). Fumento (“The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS”, 1990) among others pointed out that AIDS never spread into the general population outside Africa and the Caribbean. But the white-coated gurus who uphold the mistaken HIV/AIDS theory continue to do their best to obfuscate these facts. Take what Anthony Fauci said on the Diane Rehm show (“HIV/AIDS”, 17 August 2006, PBS Radio, transcript by Soft Scribe LLC).

Fauci admitted that “it is not a one to one ratio by any means. It’s not you have one sexual contact, and therefore you’ll get infected. It’s a relatively low efficiency”–but he failed to acknowledge that it’s about 1 per 1000, a vast and misleading difference from “not one to one”. And Fauci went on to venture this: “since there is so much sexual activity . . . , when you compound all of the sexual contacts among people, . . . , then you get the infection rates that we just spoke about where you windup getting five million new infections per year. There has to be a lot of sexual contact for that to occur. But, in fact, there is a lot of sexual contact going on everyday in the world”.

But that probability of 1 per 1000 applies only when one of the sex partners is already HIV-positive. UNAIDS puts the average global infection rate at about 1%: on average, if you choose your sexual partner at random, you have 1 chance in 100 of getting an HIV-positive one. So your overall risk is 1 in 100 multiplied by 1 in 1000, in other words 1 in 100,000. That, Fauci would have us believe, is capable of producing 5,000,000 new infections in the world each year.

And all that sexual activity Fauci conjures up somehow fails to spread gonorrhea or syphilis while disseminating something that is 100 times less infective.

So, I suggest, don’t believe everything that Dr. Anthony Fauci says, even about matters on which he is supposed to be expert.

But, of course, as I said, don’t believe what I say, either.

Just look at the evidence for yourself. That’s the smart thing to do.

17 Responses to “WHAT “HIV” IS NOT: IT’S NOT SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED”

  1. Frank said

    A few of the Gisselquist papers are available at Roberto Giraldo’s site. As Henry says, you shouldn’t believe someone just because he has a PhD, but if you find Gisselquist’s data credible it sure is hard to reconcile it with accepted theories about the sexual transmissibility of HIV.

  2. Steven Burrall said

    When these studies allege an HIV sexual transmission rate of about 1/1000 contacts, do they attempt to provide a cause and effect argument? In other words, do the data generally include evidence of HIV negative status prior to the contact, and that the 1/1000 rate of seroconversion is significantly greater than would be expected from testing a random population of HIV negative people over a similar time interval and observing how many become HIV positive? I’m curious as to whether their data is just as compatible with random seroconversions from such things as flu shots, other infections, etc; i.e, false positives.

  3. hhbauer said

    There is no standard format of these studies. The most discussed is probably Padian et al., Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Northern California: results from a ten-year study, American Journal of Epidemiology 146 (1997) 350–7. They observed NO seroconversion among initially HIV-negative partners of discordant couples during the course of the study. Their calculation assumed that among concordant couples, one MUST have “caught” HIV from the other at some time before the study began.

    Your suggested control study has not, to my knowledge, been done in the context of attempts to measure sexual transmisison rates. However, my book cites several studies of the rate of incidence of new seroconversions in military cohorts, with the surprising result that the incidence is within a small factor of the prevalence—indicating that seroconversion may be reversible, and possibly consonant with random conversions from various conditions capable of producing positive HIV tests. In fact that’s the explanation I suggest for the apparent sexual transmission; some contagious conditions may well produce positive HIV tests having nothing to do with a human immunodeficiency virus, as well as random incidence of non-contagious conditions that produce positive HIV tests, see http://virusmyth.net/aids/data/cjtestfp.htm.

  4. Roger said

    “If you have unprotected sex with someone who has gonorrhea or syphilis, your chance of catching that infection yourself is something like 50:50 (anywhere from 10% to 90%).”

    This is an inaccurate statement. In the case of syphilis, there is a window (1-6 months) during which infected people are infectious.. After that syphilitic people are not contagious unlike with HIV where people remains contagious all along.

  5. hhbauer said

    Roger, thank you, I should have said, before syphilis becomes latent, the chances of catching it are something like 50:50. Some sources have that window as long as a year.

    The chance of catching “HIV-positive” is ON AVERAGE about 1 per 1000, but some mainstream suggestions are for a period of greater infectivity and then even less chance than 1 per 1000 for about the average 10-year latent period before symptoms of illness are supposed to show up. James Chin, “The AIDS Pandemic”, asserts that 20-40% of the sub-Saharan population must be continuously engaged in promiscuous sex with multiple and changing partners to explain what the magnitude of the AIDS pandemic there is supposed to be.

  6. http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/12/huckabee_supported_isolation_f.php#comment-706735

    (The context for this comment is given in a later coomment from Darin Brown)

    Okay, let’s assume you are correct, Chris, about viral load increasing transmission rate. Here’s what some papers have to say:

    “In multivariate analyses of log-transformed HIV-1 RNA levels, each log increment in the viral load was associated with a rate ratio of 2.45 for seroconversion” Viral load and heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Rakai Project Study Group, N Engl J Med. 2000 Mar 30;342(13):921-9.

    “The overall transmission rate per 1000 coital acts was 1.36. Transmission rates increased significantly from 0.09/1000 acts at >3,500 copies/ml (RR = 1), to 1.53/1000 acts at 3,500-9,999 copies (RR = 17.0), 1.94/1000 acts at 10,000-49,999 copies (RR = 21.6) and 2.98/1,000 acts at 50,000 copies/ml or above (RR = 33.1).”, Serum Viral Load and the Rate of HIV-1 Transmission per Act of Heterosexual Intercourse in HIV Discordant Couples, Rakai, Uganda, Wawer MJ, Gray RH, Sewankambo NK, Serwadda D, Quinn TC, Lutalo T, Wabwire-Mangen F, Li C. Int Conf AIDS. 2000 Jul 9-14; 13: abstract no. TuOrC422.

    Moreover, it is clear, say from Figure 3 of Variation in HIV-1 set-point viral load: Epidemiological analysis and an evolutionary hypothesis, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 October 30; 104(44): 17441-17446, about as “up-to-date” a publication as you will find, that the factor of increased transmission rate is no more than about 30 over the varying viral loads.

    So let’s give you the benefit of the doubt, Chris, and assume transmission really is 30 times more likely during these increased viral load times. How often does this time period occur?

    “Although Dr Pinkerton noted that patients with primary HIV infection have exceptionally high viral loads, the period for which they are highly infectious is relatively short, typically no more than 49 days.”, Michael Carter, Monday, August 20, 2007 aidsmap news.

    Assuming a median time to “progression to AIDS” (whatever THAT means) of about 10 years, let’s even assume that this “acute infectious period” constitutes 2% of all possible HIV-transmissable sexual acts and then consider a hypothetical 1,000,000 sexual acts:

    20,000: acute infectious period; rate ~30 times “normal” rate
    980,000: “normal” rate

    Taking the hallowed Rakai Project Study at face value, they still noted the OVERALL transmission rate to be about 1.36 in 1,000:

    “The overall transmission rate per 1000 coital acts was 1.36.”, Serum Viral Load and the Rate of HIV-1 Transmission per Act of Heterosexual Intercourse in HIV Discordant Couples, Rakai, Uganda, Wawer MJ, Gray RH, Sewankambo NK, Serwadda D, Quinn TC, Lutalo T, Wabwire-Mangen F, Li C. Int Conf AIDS. 2000 Jul 9-14; 13: abstract no. TuOrC422.

    Now, if the OVERALL transmission rate is about 1.36 in 1,000, then one would expect about 1,360 transmissions to occur over our hypothetical 1,000,000 sexual acts. How many of these would occur during the “acute infectious period”?? Since 30 times 1/1000 equals about 1/33, it follows we should expect about 600 transmissions during this “high viral load” time of infectiousness. But we still should expect about 1,300 transmissions TOTAL. So, there’s still another 700 transmission that must occur during the 990,000 acts of “normal” ordinary viral load time.

    Note that in this estimation, 600/1,300 = about 46% of all “transmissions” are occurring in the “high viral load time”, yet according to the Pinkerton study,

    “Approximately 2760 (8.6%) of the estimated 32,000 sexually-acquired HIV infections in the USA each year are due to acute-phase transmission of the virus.”, How many sexually-acquired HIV infections in the USA are due to acute-phase HIV transmission?, AIDS. 21(12):1625-1629, July 31, 2007, Pinkerton, SD.

    Come again???

    In other words, my estimate is really really (REALLY!) giving you the benefit of the doubt. Far less than 46% of all “transmissions” occur during high viral load, so in fact my estimate OVER-estimates the number occurring during “high viral load” time.

  7. khaluha said

    Playing devil’s advocate….the high rates of HIV infection among African-American women seems to support the argument that HIV is an epidemic and a sexually transmited disease. For one, HIV is spreading beyond its original risk group, and HIV seems to be spreading just as frequently among women as it does among men in the U.S..

  8. hhbauer said

    Khaluha:
    I’ve seen no evidence that African-American women are testing HIV-positive AT A GREATER RATE now than in the past. What’s happened is that more of them are getting tested, and especially when they’re pregnant or delivering babies, conditions that favor a positive HIV-test because those things are physiologically stressing.

    In my post, HOW TO TEST THEORIES (HIV/AIDS THEORY FLUNKS), 7 January 2008, “HIV” deaths are shown by race and sex, and for 2002-4 the black males are more than twice the females, just like two decades ago.

    There are other situations too—in many countries— where claims are made of epidemics only because more people are being tested. But what we need to know is not HOW MANY PEOPLE test HIV-positve but whether the RATE, per number tested, is changing. Unfortunately the press releases and official publications don’t always give those data.

  9. Some context for the previous comment in which I copied a post from Aetiology re: viral loads and transmission rates:

    Chris Noble (among others) is always going on explaining the Padian papers and other papers that report virtually nil or negligible (1 in 1000) transmission rates by saying that transmission is highest when viral load is highest immediately following “infection”.

    Along these lines, Roger said here:
    “‘If you have unprotected sex with someone who has gonorrhea or syphilis, your chance of catching that infection yourself is something like 50:50 (anywhere from 10% to 90%).’This is an inaccurate statement. In the case of syphilis, there is a window (1-6 months) during which infected people are infectious.. After that syphilitic people are not contagious unlike with HIV where people remains contagious all along.”

    While Roger does not directly allude to a “window period” when infectivity is allegedly higher (in fact he implies it “remains contagious all along”), he definitely makes the point that one should either compare overall rates with overall rates or “high infectivity period” rates with “high infectivity period” rates, i.e. apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

    However, as I point out in my post at Aetiology, the alleged “high infectivity” for HIV is no more than about 30 times the overall rate even at the times of highest viral load. This still translates to a transmission rate of no more than 1 in 30 or so, or about 2-3%.

    Compare this 2-3% to the 10-90% of syphilis transmission during its “window period”. Even when we compare apples to apples here, the numbers are still negligible for HIV. And given that the orthodoxy now admits no more than 10% of HIV “infections” occur during this “high viral load” time, one begins to see that this is just another desperate attempt to explain away the overall transmission rate.

  10. hhbauer said

    Darin:
    Yes indeed, desperate attempts to explain away the overall transmission rate. But those are attempts to insist that sexual transmission does appreciably occur, which still begs the question of explaining EPIDEMICS. For an epidemic, the AVERAGE, OVERALL rate of transmission must make for a reproduction ratio >1: each infected person must infect more than one other person within a short space of time. The HIV/AIDS gurus point to the short window of presumed high infectivity. This then requires lots of sexual activity within those few weeks, AND similar lots of sexual activity by the newly infected partners, also within a few weeks, with yet other unfortunate partners. Hence, James Chin (“The AIDS Pandemic”), to explain the African situation, asserts that 20-40% of the sub-Saharan population must be continuously engaged in unsafe sex with multiple partners. This is not only absurd, the willingness to suggest it also reflects the silliest sort of racist stereotypes about sexual behavior among Africans.

  11. kitty said

    According to the rate of transmission, in order for the pandemic in Africa to match the data we have, the Africans would have to be drinking each other’s blood during sex in massive orgies. Somehow I can’t picture that as reality.

    Also, I may be mistaken but it’s my understanding that the HIV ‘virus’ hasn’t even been properly isolated, that it was “science by press conference” and that now, that the AIDS cocktail drug has gotten weaker, and more people are opting out of it altogether and not developing AIDS…researchers are saying: “Oh, it doesn’t fully develop in all people.”

    Looks like a lot of goal post shifting to me, and very little science. AIDS research is science like Creation research is science. IMO.

  12. Henry Bauer said

    Kitty:

    James Chin, former WHO epidemiologist, in THE AIDS PANDEMIC says that 20-40% of adult sub-Saharan Africans must be engaged in orgies for HIV to be as widespread as it (supposedly) is.

  13. Annoyed woman said

    Might be true. My daughter’s father let me know he exposed me to hiv ( from his symptoms which i thought he had other conditions now make sense and point to full blown aids with near death ilnesses) now the sociopath he is he doesnt tell me until i weaned my daughter from breastfeeding. Yes I was tested when i was pregnant as all pregnant women are in NY. But of course after he tells me this i freak and get myself and 16 month old daughter tested. Again negative. If it was so easy to get it me and my daughter would have it. He is still in major trouble though for putting me and his child at risk over and over.

  14. Matt said

    I have a simple question regarding the data. So say this is true- HIV is not sexually transmitted- then how is it transmitted? This doesn’t seem to address that at all. If it’s not an std than how is it transmitted ?

    • Henry Bauer said

      Matt:

      It isn’t transmitted at all. The epidemiology of HIV+ is not like an infectious disease. See The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory Jefferson (NC): McFarland 2007 and The Case against HIV

  15. bayo said

    Thanks for sharing light on what we don’t know hiv is not sexually transmitted diseases through or false.

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