HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/05/29

“Health expert calls for end to UN HIV programme” (, 9 May 2008 )

“The joint United Nations programme on HIV and Aids should be ‘closed down rapidly’, according to . . . Roger England, chairman of Health Systems Workshop — an independent advisory group on health management in poor countries — . . . [because] its mandate is “wrong and harmful”. . . . Writing in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Mr England says the agency was set up on the argument that HIV and its impact are exceptional.  But he writes that this argument is no longer valid and says the claims HIV needs its own body as it can tip households into poverty would also apply to all serious diseases and disasters. ‘HIV is a major disease in southern Africa, but it is not a global catastrophe, and language from a top UNAids official that describes it as ‘one of the make-or-break forces of this century’ and a ‘potential threat to the survival and well-being of people worldwide’ is sensationalist . . . . Worldwide the number of deaths from HIV each year is about the same as that among children aged under five years in India. . . . far too much is spent on HIV relative to other needs and . . . this is damaging health systems . . . . HIV causes 3.7 per cent of mortality but receives a quarter of international healthcare aid and a “big chunk” of domestic expenditure. ‘HIV exceptionalism is dead — and the writing is on the wall for UNAIDS. . . .  Why a UN agency for HIV and not for pneumonia or diabetes, which both kill more people? . . . UNAids should be closed down rapidly, not because it has performed badly given its mandate, which it has not, but because its mandate is wrong and harmful. Its technical functions should be refitted into [the World Health Organisation], to be balanced with those for other diseases.’”

Similarly, in the United States the expenditure on HIV/AIDS research dwarfs that on major killers like cancer or cardiovascular disease: 20 times as much per “HIV” death than per cancer death, 100 times as much per “HIV patient” as per cardiovascular patient (STOPPING THE HIV/AIDS BANDWAGON—-Part II, 1 February 2008).

Perhaps free-market economics can slow the bandwagon?

After all, if funds start to dry up, then the propaganda will also begin to ebb. So long as UNAIDS exists, it will seek to justify its existence by putting out the scary pseudo-statistics that James Chin, for example, has debunked (CONDOMS AND HIV: WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS IS ONCE AGAIN WRONG, 10 February 2008;  B***S*** about HIV from ACADEME via THE PRESS, 4 March 2008).

But I am not holding my breath. Too many careers and livelihoods depend on the disproportionate attention paid to HIV/AIDS. And what happens to drug sales and profits if TB, malaria, intestinal worms, malnutrition, become the focus? All those can be handled at far less expense than the provision of toxic antiretroviral drugs.


  1. Frank said

    The BMJ is hosting “rapid responses” to the England article, including this from David Rasnick:

    The Rapid Responses to Roger England’s commentary demonstrate one of his points: “Putting HIV in its place among other priorities will be resisted strongly. The global HIV industry is too big and out of control. We have created a monster with too many vested interests and reputations at stake…”

  2. Martin said

    I read through the rapid responses. What is exceptional is how many supporters of the paradigm (HIV=AIDS=Death) responded and were probably “HIV” employees. David Rasnick was the only exception. If HIV is determined not to be a contagious deadly retrovirus and AIDS is nothing more than a toxic syndrome as Dr. Peter Duesberg has postulated, the system will simply collapse.
    As to the effect on healthcare spending, I believe AIDS and the AIDS establishment has probably damaged the expansion of universal healthcare because its importance has been blown all out of proportion because of its alleged contagiousness and danger. It’s sad that the initial thoughts were closer to correctly finding an answer about what AIDS was (when epidemiologists were more sober and not inebriated on the copious quantities of money) when it was called GRID.

  3. Nick Naylor said

    Rasnick is not the lone exception to the HIV groupthink at the BMJ rapid responses.

    Note the one from Dominic D Montagu, a subject dear to my heart.

    (same link as Frank’s)

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: