HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/04/11

Everyone has surely heard the refrain, “HIV, the virus that causes AIDS”; it’s almost as though media people can’t say “HIV” without tacking on that assertion. It might be a worthwhile project for a student of Communications or Journalism or Sociology to ferret out when and where this originated: Was it an innocent media attempt to inform, or another ploy devised by PR people like those enlisted by the CDC to sell the idea that “everyone is at risk”? (Bennett & Sharpe, AIDS fight is skewed by federal campaign exaggerating risks, Wall Street Journal, 1 May 1996, pp. A1, 6)

In any case, “HIV, the virus that discriminates by race” would be more profoundly telling about what HIV really is.


There are diseases whose origins lie in unusual forms (alleles) of certain human genes–cystic fibrosis, say. Some chronic ailments or conditions, perhaps especially those that become prominent in old age, seem to affect more frequently those individuals who have a genetic predisposition–some forms of breast cancer, for instance, or certain cardiovascular conditions. Some such hereditary disorders are race-linked; perhaps the best known one is sickle-cell anemia, which is virtually confined to people of African or of Mediterranean ancestry. Having just one sickle-cell allele is not life-threatening and helps to resist the effects of malaria, while having two is life-threatening; so in regions where malaria was endemic, sickle-cell genes were favored by natural selection.

None of these genetically based conditions is contagious or infectious, of course; genes are not exchanged by bodily contact or via bodily fluids. By contrast, infectious diseases do not discriminate by race: cholera, influenza, measles, pneumonia, syphilis, tuberculosis, etc., do not display the sort of racial disparity that sickle-cell anemia does–a disparity found equally in all social groups and in both sexes at all ages.

No infectious disease shows that sort of racial disparity. All except one retrovirus, that is: the lentivirus (“slow virus”) HIV.


It’s no secret that HIV/AIDS has become a disease afflicting, in the United States, primarily African-American communities. It’s also no secret that, globally, the only region heavily afflicted by HIV/AIDS is sub-Saharan Africa. HIV/AIDS, in other words, seems to be race-linked like no other infectious condition.

This linkage with race has not been clearly brought out, though, in mainstream publications, possibly because it is inconceivable to minds entrenched in the belief that HIV/AIDS is infectious. Hence there’s a continuing need to reiterate the plain and compelling evidence.


In the United States, in every group for which the variable of race is reported in connection with HIV tests, African Americans test positive much more frequently than whites; overall, according to a recent review, black males and black females are 7 and 21 times, respectively, more likely to test HIV-positive than are white males and females (Potterat et al., International Journal of STD & AIDS, 19 [2008] 1-3).

However, such population-wide comparisons do not establish conclusively that race is the actual basis for the differential test results, because certain sub-groups might so influence the overall figures as to mask a more significant or causal factor. For example, the overall incarceration rates for black Americans are also much higher than those of white Americans; but disaggregation of the data reveals that this stems predominantly from conditions for younger black males in inner-city locales. Blacks in every social group and at all ages are not more likely to be incarcerated than are whites in the same social groups and ages: black academics or black marines are not more frequently incarcerated than are white academics or white marines. The tendency to be incarcerated is not race-linked in and of itself. For a particular characteristic to be demonstrably race-linked, that characteristic must be found in every social group and at every age. Such is the case with HIV/AIDS.

In the United States, blacks test HIV-positive markedly more often than whites among the following groups (for citation of the original sources in the mainstream literature, see Chapter 5 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory):
— women who have just delivered children
— blood donors
— applicants for military service
— teenage applicants for military service
— soldiers
— sailors
— marines
— Army Reserve personnel
— Job Corps members
— applicants for marriage licenses
— college students
— people at STD clinics
— prisoners
— drug abusers
— gay men
— the populations sampled by the National Health and Nutrition Survey
— female prostitutes, female drug abusers, “female partners of persons at risk”

In other words, blacks test positive more often than whites in high-risk groups (drug abusers, gay men, prostitutes) as well as in low-risk groups.

Furthermore, the rates of new seroconversions to HIV-positive display the same racial disparities as do the overall rates of testing positive.

Moreover, the same racial disparities are shown at all ages (relevant data have been reported for the Job Corps, soldiers, sailors, marines, applicants for military service, gay men).

Race itself is the only common factor in the racial disparities as to HIV.


If race is genuinely the responsible factor, then the same racial disparities as to HIV should show up also outside the United States. They do.

However, no other country has published HIV-test data as comprehensive, and as routinely classified by race, as the United States has, so the information about racial disparities is more spotty and sparse. Nevertheless, every mention of a racial disparity notes that Africans test positive more frequently than do non-Africans; for example:
— In South Africa, black women at prenatal clinics tested positive 15 times more often than white women, and those of mixed race fell in between. Black blood-donors tested positive 25 or 30 times more often than white donors, and Indian and mixed-race individuals fell in between (sources cited at p. 76, Tables 21 & 22 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory)
— In Britain, the disproportionate impact of HIV on Africans was illustrated by the convening of a National African HIV conference in March, 2008, at Regent’s College Conference Centre, Regent’s Park, London
“Immigrants account for 70% of HIV and TB cases” (Nigell Hawkes, The Times [London], 16 November 2007)
“There are estimated to be over 63,000 adults living with HIV in the UK . . . The majority of these are people who caught the infection abroad and of African origin” (BBC News, 7 December 2007)
— In Sheffield, England, the largest number of HIV cases is from black communities (Star [UK], Kate Lahive, 18 February 2008)
— “Almost a third of those diagnosed with HIV in Ireland last year [2006] were African” (Independent [Ireland], Tom Prendeville, 8 July 2007)
— In New Zealand, a disproportionate number of HIV-positives are refugees from Africa (NZ to foot $1m bill for HIV-positive refugees, New Zealand Herald, 17 March 2008)
— In Mauritius, the HIV-positive rate is “1.8 percent, which is low for the region. On the African mainland, HIV infection rates stand at 16.1 percent in Mozambique and 18.8 percent in South Africa” (Reuters, Roche Bois [Mauritius] 12 November 2007)
The people of Mauritius are not racially sub-Saharan African: the population is 68% Indo-Mauritian, 27% Creole, 3% Sino-Mauritian, 2% Franco-Mauritian.
— “the San people of Botswana and Namibia have mysteriously low HIV infection rates even though these countries are known for their extremely high AIDS mortality statistics” (source cited at p. 171, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).
The San, also known as Bushmen of the Kalahari, are not racially sub-Saharan, that is, they are not of Bantu Negroid ancestry.
— “Madagascar has some of the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases in the world. However, HIV infection rates for the country remain low, under 1%” (Madagascar’s ticking HIV time bomb, Jonny Hogg, BBC News, Fort Dauphin)
“HIV prevalence rate in . . . Madagascar . . . [is] lower than its neighbouring Southern Africa countries. . . . the national infection rate . . . [is] 0.95 percent . . . . [compared to] four percent prevalence rate for sexually transmitted infections” (MADAGASCAR: New law to fight HIV/AIDS stigma: Madagascar has so far been spared an HIV/AIDS epidemic, unlike its continental neighbours; Antananarivo, 20 August 2007 )
The Malagasy (Madagascans) are not racially sub-Saharan, they are of mixed Malayo-Indonesian and African-Arab ancestry. (Note that this report also contradicts the shibboleth that infection with STDs synergizes becoming HIV-positive.)


Around the world, then, HIV is found much more often in people of sub-Saharan (Negroid, Bantu) ancestry than among those of white (Caucasian) ancestry. This is so in every social and regional sub-group. Race is the decisive factor.

No other infectious disease discriminates by race in this fashion.

There is a clear choice to be made, how to explain this circumstance:

HIV is uniquely an infectious agent that discriminates by race


“HIV” is not an infection.


TO BE CONTINUED with more racial statistics, and then something about sociobiology and racism


  1. Dale Caruso said

    Somewhat related … a number of years ago I was having a problem with lymph glands that would swell up … often to the point of discomfort. A deep-needle biopsy was performed, as was a surgical biopsy with no conclusive result. I traveled to the University of Minnesota Hospitals where Dr. George Adams — who I was told was one of the top throat specialists in the world — looked into my case. I remember him testing me for cancer, Castleman’s (a rare ailment that displays like cancer but is not fatal). Also, he tested me for HIV and for AIDS … telling me that they are two entirely different issues. So perhaps at least some in the medical profession know and explain the difference.

  2. Martin said

    It’s sadly apparent to me that the so-called AIDS epidemic is a war on blacks. What a sophisticated way to perform “ethnic cleansing”. The so-called War on Drugs is also a war against blacks. Hitler was not nearly as clever as the AIDS Establishment.

  3. hhbauer said


    Interesting, to say the least!


    I think HIV/AIDS amounts to unwitting ethnic cleansing of people of African ancestry. I believe it’s a disastrous by-product of the mistakes that led to accepting HIV as the viral cause of AIDS. I don’t believe it’s deliberate, though. Hitler was deliberate about killing off Communists, gypsies, homosexuals, Jews, and assorted others.

    And I’m not sure that itler was any less clever than those who have gone wrong about HIV/AIDS. Hitler was unable to alter his beliefs in the face of reality, not unlike all too many political actors; but the HIV/AIDS Establishment also seems incapable of fitting theories to the evidence rather than the other way around, and of scientists one used to expect better than that.

  4. CathyVM said

    Unwitting or not — the CIA would be proud, not only are the exploding cigars unnecessary but these people are demanding the instruments of their own deaths. A perfect score for mind control.

  5. Michael said

    I had researched the slogan “the virus that causes AIDS” a couple of years ago, and the earliest use of it that I could find was a rather short 3 months after Gallo’s White-House-steps press claim! The very words were used on an internal NIH document from Gallo’s “boss”, Sam Broder. I think this was just before Tony Fauci arrived on the scene.

    So obviously “The Virus That Causes AIDS” slogan came first from Gallo, who, dreaming of fame, glory, and a Nobel Prize, only needed to convince his boss, Broder, and from there it was a breeze for the two of them to convince Fauci a month or two later that the issue was settled. Fauci had just stepped into his position about 3 to 4 months after the Gallo/Heckler press conference and quickly went to work getting the funds coming in.

  6. Jeff McDonald said

    Has it ever occurred to anyone to simply do a comparison of the frequency of condom use during sex between the different races? Here would be a very simple explanation for the discrepancy in different groups. The occurrence of casual sex with many different members would also have some bearing on this subject as well, I suspect. Or is the problem that it’s not “politically correct” to say that men of African descent refuse to use condoms and have a tendency to have sex with multiple partners which would of course lead to a much, much higher incidence of HIV leading, of course, to AIDS.

  7. Stephen said

    I am from South Africa, and getting tired of people who don’t look at some of the underlying issues and reasons why AIDS / HIV is so common in the black community. I used to work in places like Soweto, Vosloorus, Alexandra and some ‘informal’ settlements which don’t even have names.

    Rape is an everyday thing in most of those communities, and most of the corrupt government officials don’t touch this issue with a bargepole. Children as young as 2 years old (and younger) get raped. It has happened more than once, and happens every single day.

    School children get raped every single day, and there is nothing in place to really protect these children. Young women get raped in these poor communities, and majority of them keep quiet about it, as they think they would be ‘disgraced’ if they speak out about it. They also don’t tell their boyfriends, which in turn gets infected. The police in these areas are underpaid, underfunded and badly require more staff, which allows for these things to be commonplace.

    Did someone bother to take a look at the ratio of black to white women in Africa? The ratio at this stage is probably 20 to 1. Has anyone thought this may be the reason the statistics looks so overwhelming?

    The majority of truck drivers pick up the disease when they sleep with prostitutes at overnight truck stops. These people drive cargo into at least a dozen countries, taking the disease with them, leaving a trail of infection that will spread from there.

    The San people from Namibia and Botswana is a nomadic tribe that lives in the desert in small family groups. They don’t go sleeping around at the first drop of a hat, and they normally keep to themselves. I wonder why the AIDS rate is so low. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

    Condoms are not a great preference in South Africa, Mozambique and so forth. This is a great help to Aids spreading like wildfire through the poor communities. Most of these people struggle for clean, running water and food everyday. The last thing on that person’s mind is going to be safe sex / clean sex / STD’s.

    The island of Mauritius is very small, with people still having morals and values there. They also don’t go sleeping about at the drop of a hat.

    Countries where Islam is a main religion under communities also don’t seem to be affected by AIDS so much. Maybe because they get killed if they rape someone, or simply get beaten to a pulp if they sleep around before marriage.

    Could the people that do this so called research stop looking at the white piece of paper with the numbers on it, and start looking at the culture and the community that surrounds those figures.


    Do not look for excuses if you are not happy with who you are, and cannot stand up for yourself. I am white, and will only really change colour once I die.

    Racial discrimination is the cause I am out of my country, because I am “white”. Because of what other people did, I had to leave everything I ever knew behind. This has not stopped me from making friends from Tibet, Nigeria, Uganda, Sudan, Zimbabwe and so on.

    Like they say: If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

    Now insecure people want to hide behind the AIDS virus…. What has this world come to?

    In the immortal words:
    “Most people die at 25, it is a pity that they are only buried at 75″.

  8. hhbauer said


    Thank you for such prompt information! If you still have a record of those items, I’d welcome the references for my files. Maybe I’ve just become more sensitized to notice the use of this phrase in recent years, after I learned that it’s definitely not true.

  9. hhbauer said

    Jeff McD:

    I am not aware of any study of racial differences in the use of condoms. As to a tendency to have sex with multiple partners, that describes human males; I have seen no evidence that it is race-linked.

    In a later post I will be citing a number of studies that have found no racial differences in sexual behavior that could explain the racial disparities in testing HIV-positive. A few of those are cited at p. 77 in my book The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory —; they are
    Bausell et al., AIDS Research 2 (1986) 253-8
    Friedman et al., Milbank Quarterly 65 (suppl. 2, 1987) 455-99
    Samuel & Winkelstein, JAMA . 257 (1987) 1901-2
    San Francisco Epidemiological Bulletin 2 (12, 1986) 1-3

    The notion that condoms reduce transmission of HIV is a deduction based on the prior belief that HIV is sexually transmitted. On the other hand, the data on transmission of venereal diseases (sexually transmitted diseases, STDs) and on the relation between HIV and STDs show inductively that HIV is not sexually transmitted; and a number of reports have found directly that condom use has not been proved to decrease the probability that the HIV-negative partner of an HIV-positive person will seroconvert.

    For example, Wawer et al. (J. Infect. Dis. 191 [2005] 1403-9) found that “there was no significant difference in the rate of HIV transmission per coital act with inconsistent condom use, compared with no reported use, at any stage of infection”; as did Padian et al. (JAMA 257 [1987] 788-90). All studies of sexual transmission of HIV have found probabilities on the order of 1 per 1000 acts of unprotected intercourse, staggeringly less than with known STDs; “A review of such studies (Chakraborty et al., AIDS 15 [2001] 621-6) concluded that ‘the transmission probabilities presented are so low that it becomes difficult to understand the magnitude of the HIV-1 pandemic’.”

    Assertions that fly in the face of this and other observational evidence continue to come from official sources. For example, an editorial in the British Medical Journal (329 [2004] 185-6) does so, citing a workshop at the National Institutes of Health— But in the report from that workshop, the assertion that condom use decreases transmission of HIV merely cites a meta-analysis that used only 12 of some larger number of published studies and which confirmed once again that unprotected intercourse is an incredibly inefficient way of passing on the HIV-positive condition: 6.7 seroconversions per 100 person-years—at only 50 acts per year, 1 per week, that is a probability of 1.3 per 1000; at the more common 2-3 acts per week, the probability is 5 per 10,000. The probability of transmitting any of syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, or chlamydia is hundreds of times greater. In the most cited (as well as misinterpreted) study, by Padian (Am. J. Epidem. 146 [1997] 350-7), not a single seroconversion was observed during the course of the actual study, which stretched over a decade.

    It is also routinely asserted that one is more likely to become HIV-positive if one already has an STD. But many data contradict this as well. On p. 109 of my book I cite data showing that rates of HIV-positive and of STD infections changed in opposite directions over the years in French Polynesia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, and Thailand; and that interventions to reduce transmission risks in Uganda did indeed reduce the incidence of gonorrhea, herpes, and syphilis, while the incidence of HIV remained unchanged. On p. 115 I cite a study in Pakistan that found syphilis at 12% among truck drivers, yet not a single HIV-positive among 300 drivers, even though more than 50% reported sex with prostitutes, 20% reported male-to-male sex, only 5% used condoms in their last sexual encounter, and more than 65% never used a condom. In China, no HIV was detected among gay men despite a 10% prevalence of syphilis (He et al., AIDS Behav. 2006 Jun 27; PMID: 16802197) nor among a group of gay men with gonorrhea prevalence at 2.7%, chlamydia at 8%, urethritis at 27.7%, active syphilis at 6.9%, herpes 7.8%, hepatitis B at 9.1%, and genital warts at 13.2% (Jiang et al., Sex Transm Dis. 33 [2006] 118-23). Among a group of gay men in Sydney (Australia) who had syphilis, only 54% were HIV-positive (Jin et al., Med. J. Aust. 183 [2005] 172-3, 179-83). In Ireland, among 547 men with syphilis (415 of them being gay men), only 4% were HIV-positive but 15.4% had some other STD (Cronin et al., Euro Surveill. 9 [#12, 2004] 14-7; PMID: 15677853).

    There is no proof that HIV-positive is sexually transmitted, and—therefore, unsurprisingly— there is no proof that transmission of the HIV-positive condition is significantly decreased by the use of condoms.

  10. hhbauer said


    I combined your two comments.

    Your mention of friends from “Nigeria, Uganda, Sudan, Zimbabwe and so on” indicates that you agree with me that behavior, including sexual behavior, is determined by cultural milieu, social conditions, and is not a fixed racial attribute.

    As to 20 to 1, that describes the relative RATES of testing HIV+, not numbers; if 1 white woman in 1000 white women tests positive, then (about) 20 black women out of 1000 black women in similar social circumstances will test positive.

    As to truck drivers spreading HIV, which official sources like to refer to, it is a story with no evidence to back it up; see my response to Jeff McD for a citation.

    What’s politically correct is to accept that HIV is a sexually transmitted infection that causes AIDS. If you ask for the evidence, or point out that the evidence disproves that view, you offend innumerable pooh-bahs and “right-thinking” celebrities.

  11. “Everyone has surely heard the refrain, ‘HIV, the virus that causes AIDS’; it’s almost as though media people can’t say ‘HIV’ without tacking on that assertion. It might be a worthwhile project for a student of Communications or Journalism or Sociology to ferret out when and where this originated: Was it an innocent media attempt to inform, or another ploy devised by PR people like those enlisted by the CDC to sell the idea that ‘everyone is at risk’? (Bennett & Sharpe, AIDS fight is skewed by federal campaign exaggerating risks, Wall Street Journal, 1 May 1996, pp. A1, 6)”

    This and related questions are addressed in extraordinary detail in Steven Epstein’s book, Impure Science, the second chapter, “HIV and the Consolidation of Certainty”:

  12. I can answer your question about where the phrase “the virus that causes AIDS” came from. I was working in TV news in the early and mid-80s when AIDS became a big story. We got the phrase from public-health officials who demanded that we emphasize that someone who tested HIV positive didn’t necessarily have AIDS. This was at the time that Ryan White’s story was big news. He was a boy who got the infection from a blood transfusion, and his school district wanted to keep him out of classes with other children.

    At the time, we didn’t know a lot about how HIV spread, and there was a fear among the public that it could be spread by rather casual contact. There were also doctors who were concerned about the wide-spread HIV infection in Bell Glade, Florida and the surrounding areas. They were investigating whether mosquitoes could spread the disease — again not an official public-health position.


    Oh, and BTW, the HIV outbreak in Belle Glade became a non-story when it was realized that those people infected were primarily Jamaicans brought to the area to chop sugar cane.

    Public health officials, from the CDC to local health departments, were in a panic to show that they were in control of the situation, when, of course, they were not. They blamed the media for causing the fear shared by many people at that time, and demanded that we not refer to someone as having AIDS. They only wanted them described as HIV positive.

    Now, many people in the media are not very imaginative. They frequently use cliches instead of writing clearly. This “HIV — the virus that causes AIDS” has now become one of those cliches.

  13. hhbauer said

    John Simmons:

    Many thanks for this information. It reminds me how often one can surmise dark reasons when the real basis is innocent. A favorite saying, which I too often forget to apply to a particular situation, is: Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence, because the latter is so common.

  14. mykoolaidtastesfunny said

    This is completely anecdotal, so on the one hand I don’t want to behave in the manner of an AIDS researcher mistaking anecdotes for evidence, but…this is what I’ve seen recently.

    I just got back from 3 weeks in Morocco traveling with sometimes one and sometimes two gay guys, my friend and our host. My friend was warned in advance to bring his own lube as there simply was none for sale anywhere in the country. Moroccan men aren’t circumsized and have a lot of natural lubrication, also it’s a relatively conservative country, it isn’t Saudi Arabia, there are bars, vineyards, night clubs, etc., but it isn’t the US either. Condoms are available but only in pharmacies and they simply are not bothered with by gay men there. Our host has been going there for well over 20 years and has bought a house. My friend and I also noticed, after a few days, that there is no visible “AIDS awareness” campaign. No billboards, no posters, no free condoms, nothing.

    Another curious thing about Morocco is the attitude that if you’re on top you’re not gay. This leads to even “heterosexual” men having homosexual encounters. The first two escorts that they hired both had girlfriends, apparently. (Meaning they weren’t “really” gay I guess.) Both my friend and our host have tested “HIV-positive” (my friend knows now that it’s a scam and doesn’t let it get in his way) but gay (or semi-gay, Ha! Ha!) men just never use condoms there. Gay sex certainly can’t lead to pregnancy so….

    There are also many people, especially in southern Morocco, of Sub-Saharan African descent, i.e BLACK. The king is part Senegalese and nobody in Morocco has ever minded the Senegalese presence. According to my friend’s Senegalese hook-up, the only discrimination in Morocco is maybe against Namibians. Why Namibians? I don’t know. Some kind of tribal thing apparently.

    The point is… I saw plenty of homosexual hook-ups (wasn’t in the rooms, but I met a few of them and heard all about it the next days); saw zero AIDS awareness anywhere, our host said he never uses condoms and no gay man does in Morocco, saw no condoms for sale anywhere, and also saw no dying people clogging the streets nor even any mention of such a thing.

    Oh and…. right outside our host’s house was a park where young males and females go for hook-ups. Not IN the park but that’s where they meet up. I have no idea of the condom practices of those people, but they certainly aren’t shy about looking for sex, Muslim country or not. Not all Muslim countries are the same, just as not all Christian countries are.

    When I checked the stats on Morocco when I got back sure enough…. no sign of any epidemic decimating the population where gay sex is widely practiced (even by “heterosexuals”), black people mix freely (read: sexually) with non-blacks and condom use almost non-existent.

    • Henry Bauer said


      All of North Africa has a very low (officially-estimated) rate of “HIV+”:“sub-saharan-africa”-and-“the-caribbean”/

      Would be interesting to know what the percentages are for Blacks compared to Arabs.

      I was puzzled by “a lot of natural lubrication”, but I suspect we shouldn’t get into that further on the blog 😉

      • mykoolaidtastesfunny said

        I’ll keep it R-rated but I guess the foreskin has a gland that provides lubrication. It also contradicts the theory that it is the lack of circumcision that may put black people at higher risk.

      • Casey Holland said

        They are uncircumcised. Natural lubrication…skin slides on itself 🙂 Perfectly clean for the blog!

      • Sabine Kalitzkus said


        As to natural lubricants, just read the breathtakingly well written short story “Brokeback Mountain” by Annie Proulx.

        Watching the movie will not answer your question, because when it comes to certain events, the screen is all black.

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: