HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/04/16

HIV is unique not only as an infection that discriminates by race; it’s unique as a sexually transmitted infection that discriminates by race. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, syphilis seem equally able to infect humans of all racial types. No venereal disease—other than HIV/AIDS—targets primarily one racial group.

This is so incredible, and the matter is so centrally important, that no amount of supporting evidence could be redundant. To de-throne HIV/AIDS theory calls for overkill. So to the data presented in an earlier post (HIV: THE VIRUS THAT DISCRIMINATES BY RACE, 11 April 2008 ), I add some more.


The UNAIDS statistics for the global distribution of “HIV-infection” rates in 1997 and 2007 are, respectively:
Sub-Saharan Africa, 7.4% and 5.0%
Caribbean, 1.9% and 1.0%
Everywhere else, ≤ 1% in both years
(The decreases from 1997 to 2007 are officially ascribed to recent data being more accurate, not to any actual decline; after all, any decline might raise questions about the incessant propaganda alleging an uncontrollably spreading epidemic)

That unchanging global distribution parallels the proportions of people of African ancestry in those regions: a larger proportion of the Caribbean population is of African ancestry than elsewhere outside Africa.

No other sexually transmitted infection has managed to be quarantined geographically and racially in this way. North Africa, contiguous with sub-Saharan Africa, had a reported rate of 0.3% in 2007. Do people from sub-Saharan Africa not have sex with people in neighboring countries?

At various times and in various parts of the world, sex across racial lines has been taboo, even officially outlawed. The utter futility of such attempts to prevent miscegenation is demonstrated by the large numbers of people of mixed race living all over the world. Yet HIV somehow manages, more successfully than laws or taboos, to overcome sexual attraction across racial lines. HIV just doesn’t much care to be shared sexually with people of non-African (Negroid, sub-Saharan) ancestry.

You might ask, “What about all those gay men in the largely white communities where AIDS first appeared?”
True enough, there’s an apparent exception—though it implies that AIDS and HIV are synonymous whereas they are actually not correlated (chapter 9 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory). But leaving that aside, it would still be not so great an exception after all, because the same racial disparities as to HIV are found among gay men as in low-risk groups (and also among heterosexual clients at STD clinics). According to a CDC Fact Sheet (“HIV/AIDS among men who have sex with men”, revised June 2007), gay black men in large cities tested positive 46% of the time whereas gay white men in the same cities tested at the rate of only 21%. (See also Figures 11 & 12, p. 42, in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory)

No interracial sex among gay men in large metropolitan areas?! Apparently, HIV-positive human beings display a sexual fastidiousness as to race that HIV-negative humans do not.


But it’s not just black and white (double entendre intended). Several anecdotes in the earlier post (HIV: THE VIRUS THAT DISCRIMINATES BY RACE, 11 April 2008 ) noted that people of mixed race test “HIV”-positive at rates that fall between those of their parents’ races; “HIV”-positive behaves, in other words, just like other physical attributes that are proportional to degrees of racial ancestry, skin color for example. Is the tendency to be infected by this sexually transmitted agent inherited in quantitative fashion?

Yet further evidence that “HIV” is race-linked comes from data on other human races; for instance, Asians always test “HIV”-positive much less frequently than whites: about 35% less often, in fact (sources cited at p. 54 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, for data from the Job Corps, applicants for military service, public testing sites, and young gay men ). The death rates from “HIV disease” for 2000-2004 among Asians are also less than those of non-Hispanic whites, in that case by 70% or more (“HIV DISEASE” IS NOT AN ILLNESS, 19 March 2008).

“HIV” prefers whites over Asians by a substantial amount. I’ve come across no reports that contradict this generalization.


Data for Hispanics are routinely published in official US documents because Hispanics constitute a minority group eligible for affirmative action, but it is recognized that “Hispanic” is an ethnic and not a racial classification.

Here’s a most remarkable fact. Hispanics in the eastern USA test “HIV”-positive at far higher rates than do Hispanics in the western USA:

“In the Western states, HIV seroprevalence was similar among Hispanics and whites, while in states along the Atlantic Coast, seroprevalence was higher among Hispanics than among whites” (CDC Surveillance Report for 1992, p. 37). This difference, a large one, has been noted among military personnel and among new mothers, in the Job Corps and at various clinics, in low-risk groups as well as among drug abusers (sources cited at p. 71 ff. in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).

In what way could Hispanics in the East differ from Hispanics in the West?

Racially, of course.

In the Northeast, Hispanics are 40% Puerto Rican and 10% Mexican (3% Cuban, 47% “other”)
In the West, Hispanics are 75% Mexican and 2% Puerto Rican (≤1% Cuban, ≥20% “other”)
Puerto Ricans share a large proportion of relatively recent African ancestry, Mexicans do not.
(Numbers from US Census Bureau, “The Hispanic Population—Census 2000 Brief”)

Once again, people of African ancestry test HIV-positive much more frequently than do people of non-African ancestry.


US data recognize yet another racial classification, that of Native American. Compared to white Americans as 1.00, the frequency of positive “HIV”-tests among Native Americans averages 1.5 in four studies cited in my book (Table 14, p. 66; also 0.63 for Asians, 2.3 for Hispanics and 5.7 for blacks ). In a 2006 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the ratios come out as 1.23 for Native Americans, 3.3 for Hispanics, 8.5 for blacks. Data for 2005 yield ratios of 1.2 for Native Americans, 0.85 for “Asians & Pacific Islanders”, 3.2 for Hispanics, 8.1 for blacks. Noteworthy perhaps in that latter report is that “Navajo-area American Indians” tested at 0.85 compared to white Americans.

Those data once again mirror racial ancestry since they place Native Americans quite close to Caucasians. The Americas were settled, according to the latest scenario, via four major migrations from Siberia and Asia, between about 10,000 and perhaps as much as 40,000 years ago; there is some evidence also of contacts across the Pacific or from Polynesia. So Native Americans (including Mexicans) are closely related genetically to Asians and Caucasians, with little if any vestiges of African ancestry (which was, however, shared by all Homo sapiens at about 200,000 years ago).


The evidence is simply overwhelming: from every tested social group, high-risk as well as low-risk; from every part of the world; for both sexes and at all ages—wherever “HIV” tests are reported separately by race in any given sample, the tendency to test “HIV”-positive is paralleled by racial ancestry. Africans test positive most frequently, Asians least frequently, Caucasians in between but relatively close to Asians, and Native Americans quite close to Caucasians.

The geographic distribution of positive “HIV”-tests in the USA—which has not shown appreciable change during the two decades of the AIDS era—can even be calculated from the racial composition of the population in different parts of the country (p. 66 ff. in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory). Try doing that with chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, or syphilis.

“HIV” discriminates by race just as though it were capable of recognizing the DNA sequences in the human genome. The tendency to test “HIV”-positive, for a given state of health, is determined primarily by race and significantly by age and sex. This is not how a sexually transmitted infection behaves.


  1. clue said

    You state that “HIV” is the only sexually transmitted disease that discriminates by race, but recent studies have demonstrated that other sexually transmitted diseases are more prevalent in the African American community than others. Recent studies show about a half of teenage African American women are infected with a STD. Aren’t std’s more prevalent among certain social economic classes which many black folks seem to be a part of? Wouldn’t this data fit well the high prevalence of “HIV infection” among black women?

  2. hhbauer said


    Thanks for raising a central point over which there is any amount of misunderstanding. Overall numbers for the United States certainly reflect the lingering consequences of racial discrimination; African Americans are on overall national average more likely to be poor, incarcerated, out of work, in ill health, etc. But this is not a direct result of African ancestry. For something to be genuinely, directly, linked to race, it must be associated in the same way with race no matter what the social and economic environment may be. That’s what’s so telling and surprising about the racial disparities in “HIV”: they follow the same trends along racial lines among new mothers as among gay men, among blood donors and also among drub abusers, among applicants for military service…. in every tested group and sub-group, and in every part of the world, people of African ancestry test “HIV-positive” quite significantly more often than people of non-African ancestry.

    That’s not the case with any STD. There are many illustrations cited in my book ( Outbreaks of syphilis, gonorrhea, etc., occur periodically in different places at different times. In the 1970s, for instance, syphilis was more common among gay white men than among African American women. No STD is always directly linked to race. “HIV-positive” is.

  3. clue said


    “For something to be genuinely, directly, linked to race, it must be associated in the same way with race no matter what the social and economic environment may be; that’s not the case with any STD.”

    The orthodoxy’s explanation for this is that many people of European ancestry have a genetic “protection” against “HIV infection.” What are you thoughts on that?

  4. hhbauer said

    CLue says, “The orthodoxy’s explanation for this is that many people of European ancestry have a genetic ‘protection’ against ‘HIV infection.'”

    I recall seeing something about this somewhere, but don’t know where. Can you supply a reference?

    In principle, my response would be, “Please cite another infection in which this sort of genetic protection is displayed, Asian > Caucasian >> African”.

    On the other hand, there is a good alternative explanation based on something like the Perth Group notion that “HIV-positive” is a response to oxidative stress, or Duesberg’s that HIV is a “passenger” virus released under physiological stress, or the view that “HIV” is an HERV (human endogenous retrovirus): certain proteins and bits of DNA or RNA are released (probably from immune-system cells) under certain conditions of or challenges to health, and the intensity of that response is race-linked. In my book, I cite sources to support that view, including why humans, who evolved in the tropics of Africa, would have developed very strong immune responses that would have been progressively lost in less health-challenging environments. Asians seem to represent the oldest migration out of Africa, Caucasians a somewhat later one (Homo erectus has been found in China, and there have even been arguments as to whether the transition to sapiens occurred there as well as in Africa).

  5. MacDonald said


    The “elegant” science, as it was once described to Duesberg, which has found that the HIV-1-protective CCR5-Δ32-deletion is predominant in people of European heritage, is exactly the kind of BS that should convince anyone that HIV science is a bad joke. Two seconds of googling will produce this:

    “Studies on different European populations have shown that the frequency of the ΔCCR5 allele ranges from 2% in Greece to 16% in Finnish and Mordvinian populations. The ΔCCR5 allele is absent or rare in African, American Indian and Asiatic populations”.

    And here:

    “While CCR5 has multiple variants in its coding region, the deletion of a 32-bp segment results in a
    nonfunctional receptor, thus preventing HIV-R5 entry; two copies of this allele provide strong protection against HIV infection.[6] This allele is found in 5-14% of Europeans but is rare in Africans and Asians.[7] Multiple studies of HIV-infected persons have shown that presence of one copy of this allele delays progression to the condition of AIDS by about 2 years. CCR5-Δ32 decreases the number of CCR5 proteins on the outside of the CD4 cell, which can have a large effect on the HIV-disease progression-rates. It is possible that a person with the CCR5-Δ32 receptor allele will not be infected with HIV-R5 strains. Several commercial testing companies offer tests for CCR5-Δ32.” [[hyphens inserted by blog moderator]]

    As Prof. Bauer will tell you and the “elegant” scientists who have come up with this ad hoc hypothesis, American Indians are poorer than Afro-Americans, and they also lack the potentially protective CCR5 allele, but their and Asian Americans’ HIV infection rates are comparable to that of Caucasians,
    not Afro-Americans or Hispanics.

    This is the beauty (and elegance) of the sort of research where one hand doesn’t know what the other is doing.

  6. MacDonald said


    A genetic mapping of Indians has now shown what we already knew, that Indians are genetically defenceless against the rampaging HIV:

    “NEW DELHI: The biggest ever gene mapping exercise of the ‘people of India’ has shown that Indians are more vulnerable to HIV-AIDS than many other population groups around the world. This is because a protective gene marker against HIV-1 is virtually absent in India, making the population more at risk.

    The study also shows that the risk increases as one moves from north to south India.”

    A terrible situation! As one Indian blogger expresses it, “This explains the high vulnerability that we are cursed with”. Everything seems to conspire against India: A Third World country, widespread poverty, high population-density in urban areas, difficult-to-reach rural areas, and now this latest blow, a genetic predisposition for acquiring HIV and AIDS perhaps unrivalled in the world. Is there any place more cursed than India? Well, yes, actually. There is, for instance, the US, one of the richest, most technologically advanced, most thoroughly HIV-tested and medicated countries in the First World. Here are the current numbers:

    India population: 1.1 billion.

    India HIV prevalence: 2.5 million.

    India cumulative AIDS cases (2006): 125,000.

    USA population: 300 million. (a quarter of India’s population)

    USA HIV prevalence: 1.1 million. (almost half India’s prevalence)

    USA cumulative AIDS cases: 1 million.

    The extremely low number of Indian AIDS cases is supposedly explained by under-reporting. But this does not explain away the fact that the US, in spite of its vastly greater resources and supposedly superior genetic protection, has a far higher HIV prevalence per capita than India, and has had so with a steady 1 million prevalence for 20 years!

    While infection rates in the US are thought to be rising, here’s what has to say about the exploding pandemic on the genetically doomed Indian subcontinent:

    “Back-calculation suggests that HIV prevalence in India may have declined slightly in recent years, though the epidemic is still growing in some regions and population groups”.


  7. Orlando said

    Mr. Bauer, your argument, that HIV seems to be the only STD to differentiate between ethnicity and therefore cannot be an STD doesn’t seem to be correct. According to this,, in fact every other STD does discriminate between race, with black Americans having the highest rates of STD’s (chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis; see Tables) constantly between 1981 and 2002.

  8. Henry Bauer said


    The data source you cite is actually one that I drew on in my book, where I reproduce a Figure like Figure X. The remarkable thing about “HIV” is the constancy of the relative rankings by race, to the extent that in low-risk groups the ratios are almost quantitatively regular. Note in Figures X to Z on the site you quote, that the ratios change dramatically over the years: something was going on among black adolescents around 1990 that was not going on in the other racial groups.

    In my book I cite other examples of how STDs jump around from region to region over the years, while the geographic distribution of “HIV” has remained the same, globally as well as within the United States.

    The constancy has to be revealed by disaggregation . The question is, does “black” in itself mean “more likely to have an STD”? If so, then that should show up among black Marines, blood donors, new mothers, military personnel, etc. I haven’t seen any data that reports higher incidence of syphilis, gonorrhea, etc., among blacks in all social sectors and at all ages . What’s remarkable about “HIV” is that the same racial rankings and ratios do show up in all social sectors and at all ages and in all parts of the world: black > Hispanic > Native American > white > Asian; and among Hispanics in the United States, East Coast Hispanics (predominantly African ancestry) > West Coast Hispanics (predominantly Mexican ancestry).

    If you do not disaggregate by social sector, urban or rural residence, etc., then black Americans rank high not only in STDs but also in poverty, crime rates, lower life-expectancy, and more. But none of those is INHERENT to being black. The OVERALL numbers are misleading. They reflect that a large proportion of black Americans are still experiencing the long-lasting after-effects of slavery and segregation. By contrast, disaggregation into age groups and social groups reveals that “HIV” IS INHERENT TO BEING BLACK . But poverty isn’t, and crime isn’t, and STDs aren’t, and sexual behavior isn’t (a number of specific sources are cited in my book for that last assertion).

    Constancy of racial disparities in rankings and ratios of “HIV” as well as constancy of age variations and constancy of geographic distribution is what shows that “HIV” is not an STD.

    This is a crucial point, please don’t hesitate to continue the discussion if this has not been convincing. There are other aspects of “HIV/AIDS” where a similar sort of disaggregating is necessary, perhaps most significantly in the relation between “HIV and” AIDS. The “HIV” test was created from sera taken from AIDS patients who were very ill . Consequently, people who are ill tend to test “HIV”-positive. But many “HIV”-positives are not and never do become ill, and many AIDS patients are not “HIV”-positive, so the relation between “HIV” and AIDS is not INHERENT . But if you take data for whole countries lumped together, then there is a correlation between “HIV” and AIDS; but it is a misleading correlation.

  9. nomoreh1b said

    Actually there have been other cases of STD’s that affect some populations more than others. Syphilis spreads faster in groups that are type A and less among groups that are Type O or B.

    The question here:
    do we see increased incidence of HIV in the US after we factor out the traditional explanations — and factors like STD’s, IV drug use — and less strong factors like alcoholism and tobacco use.

    • Henry Bauer said

      nomoreeh1b: Do you have sources to cite for differential spread according to blood group? And what do you mean by increased incidence?

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s