HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Least susceptible = most affected?! More HIV/AIDS nonsense

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/02/22

No one questions that people of African ancestry feature much more frequently in HIV/AIDS statistics than do others, be it in Africa, the United States, the Caribbean, or elsewhere.

Three chapters of my book deal with those facts and their interpretation, as do several posts on this blog. The issue is really quite straightforward: Is the prominence of Africans as to HIV/AIDS a reflection of riskier behavior with respect to sex or drugs?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other official bodies and activist groups in the United States accept that risky behavior is the culprit; they harp on behavioral change as the way to deal with and ideally to prevent this prominence of blacks in HIV/AIDS statistics. James Chin infers for sub-Saharan Africa an extraordinary degree of promiscuity.

I disagree. This official stance entails that African ancestry determines behavior. That’s wrong because genes don’t determine behavior so simply and directly. It’s also racist, replaying the fear-mongering about oversexed black men.

I’ve argued that the data cannot be legitimately interpreted in this fashion. Behavior varies by social group. If there is a disease that strikes some people more than others, and if its incidence is invariably linked to certain genes in every social group, then that disease is hereditary and not a contagious infection spread by particular behavior — for example, sickle-cell anemia. The racial disparities in prevalence and incidence of “HIV” are the same among blood donors, drug abusers, gay men, military cohorts, pregnant women, university students, and other social sectors, in all countries and cultures. Blacks are “HIV-positive” far more frequently than whites in all those social groups and in all countries for which I’ve seen data: USA, Britain, Germany, the Caribbean, Africa. Clearly, that phenomenon is not the result of a particular kind of sexual behavior that blacks practice more than others, anywhere and everywhere. The great tendency for blacks to acquire “HIV-positive” status is not a result of behavior. “HIV” is not an infection, a fortiori not a sexually transmitted infection.

There have been a few mainstream attempts to make the sexually transmitted hypothesis compatible with the facts which show that “HIV-positive” status is determined by some inherent, i.e. genetic property: suggestions that something in ancestral African genes renders CD4 cells more prone to infection by and killing by “HIV”. Those attempts are less than convincing, to put it mildly  [Racial disparities in testing “HIV-positive”: Is there a non-racist explanation?, 4 May 2008 ; Mainstream duffers clutch at Duffy straws: African ancestry and HIV, 26 July 2008 ; Dr. Frankenstein turns to CCR5, 31 July 2008 ].

In any case, the facts present an inherent contradiction about blacks and HIV/AIDS. On the one hand, blacks are (1) much more likely to test “HIV-positive” and (2) much more likely to die from “HIV disease”. On the other hand, they (3) become “HIV-positive” at older ages than others and (4) die at older ages than others. The first two facts indicate that blacks resist “HIV” less well than others do, the last two facts indicate that blacks resist “HIV” better than others do.

(1) That blacks test “HIV-positive” at far greater rates than others is not controversial. That these differences cut across social groups is documented from official sources and peer-reviewed journals and in great detail in my book and several blog posts.

(2) That blacks die at far greater rates than others from “HIV disease” is shown in the relative mortalities reported, for example, in data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Examples from 1999 and 2004 were given in an earlier post:

absurdracetable1
(3) That blacks test “HIV-positive” at greater ages than whites was also shown in an earlier post:

absurdracetable2
(4) The rate data in Table 1 show that the median ages of death are higher for blacks than for whites, especially for males. They are also quite significantly higher than for Asians, Native Americans, or Hispanics:

absurdracetable3

People of African ancestry don’t contract “HIV” until they are on average older than others, and they survive that “disease” longer than others do — they are less susceptible to it, in other words, better protected against it in some fashion. At the same time, they are far more likely to contract the “disease”, and they die from “it” at a far greater rate than others — they are more susceptible to it, in other words.

Those are blatant mutual contradictions. Strangely enough, a similar contradiction is seen among blood donors:

absurdracetable4

The highest rates for each group are in bold italics. The maximum rate for testing positive is much lower, and occurs at lower ages, among the repeat donors than among the first-time donors. Repeat donors have been screened more thoroughly than first-time donors, obviously, so it’s hardly surprising that the rate of “HIV-positive” is much higher among first-time than among repeat donors; but why then do those first-time donors who do become “infected” acquire that status at distinctly higher ages? Once again, as with the racial disparities: those who are most likely to have been “infected” by a sexually transmitted agent tend to be infected at older ages than those who are less likely to be infected?! Among both males and females?

This strikes me as one of the more memorable absurdities that HIV/AIDS theorists demand that we swallow. A sexually transmitted agent that infects maximally people in their mid-30s?! In all social groups! Year after year! And the more susceptible you are to this “infection”, the older you are likely to be before you get “infected”?!
And the more susceptible you are to becoming infected, the longer you’re likely to live before being killed by that infection?!

Selling a couple of Brooklyn Bridges ought to have been much easier than selling  HIV/AIDS theory.

—————————-

Here’s a PDF of blog posts from 7th to 22nd February inclusive.

57 Responses to “Least susceptible = most affected?! More HIV/AIDS nonsense”

  1. Katrina Joseph said

    Dr. Bauer,
    How can you even attempt to dismiss the possibility that HIV in Africans is not sexually transmissible using the illolgic of red cell antigens as you do with your link to the Duffy study above? You are aware that Blacks do carry the Duffy antigen statistically more than whites, Asians or Hispanics? You are aware, are you not, that Hispanics, for instance are more likely to carry the Diego antigen? There is obviously a direct correlation.
    Also, to throw another wrench into your theory, why is it that people with the red cell phenotype of Jk(a-)(b-) will never be infected with malaria, P. vivax?
    Another well established fact.
    Can you address this?
    Thank you,
    Katrina Jospeh, MT ASCP, SBB (Specialty in Blood Banking)

    • Henry Bauer said

      Katrina:

      The “HIV+” data collated in my book as well as in blog posts show “HIV+” incidence and prevalence to vary in regular, predictable fashion with age, sex, race, and (urban-nonurban) geography, which precludes that “HIV” is an infection. I referenced “Duffy” and a couple of others not as proof that “HIV” isn’t sexually transmitted but as examples of mainstream attempts to explain these regularities for something that’s sexually transmitted. I find those attempts inadequate to cope with the mass of data that proves “HIV” to be not an infection.

      The point of this particular post is that the data show people of African ancestry to be both more but also less likely to be affected by “HIV/AIDS”, which is nonsense. I have no doubt that large numbers of correlations can be found like those you cite. So what? I’m not arguing that there can never be genetic traits that predispose or protect from particular infections. I’m saying that people can’t be genetically predisposed to be both more and also less susceptible to a given pathogen.

  2. Dave said

    Katrina Joseph,

    Why not acknowledge the incredible inconsistency that Dr. Bauer has illuminated? For some inexplicable reason, blacks test “positive” for HIV antibody, in staggeringly higher numbers than whites, and whites test “positive” in staggeringly higher numbers than Asians.

    Does it mean that blacks are getting more infected than whites, and whites more than Asians (conventional view) or that something is askance with the test?

  3. Sadun Kal said

    I would like this communication with Katrina Joseph to continue around here. Partially because I would like to see what arguments she will present and how she handles the whole thing, but also because she seems to have some connection with the Semmelweis Society, and apparently she dislikes Clark Baker.

    Nowadays I’m a little bothered by allegations surrounding Clark Baker and the lack of information about what’s going on. It interests me because it affects the image of HIV/AIDS skeptics. I think Katrina may be able to share with us what she thinks she knows about it all, preferably in an objective non-aggressive manner. Of course everyone else is also welcome to share what they know, I’m just worried that we’ll take another unexpected blow.

  4. MacDonald said

    Perhaps this is an opportune moment to clean up our language a bit:

    “HIV positive” is neither exclusively nor necessarily a measure of a sexually transmitted pathogen.

    • Henry Bauer said

      MacDonald:

      That’s a nice, concise phrase. But I think a bit more is needed, to the effect that most positive “HIV” tests in the United States do not stem from a transmitted, in particularly not a sexually transmitted, pathogen. That’s why the overall data show all those constant trends.

  5. Martin said

    Hi Dr. Bauer, I have a question for Katrina Joseph: Can you come up with a single Native African from whom the “AIDS virus” was actually isolated? The correlation between getting “sick” and having a “positive” result is not acceptable as evidence. As Dr. Bauer has consistently drilled: correlation does not imply causation as much as epidemiologists would like the opposite to be true. Of course HIV accolytes like K. Joseph wouldn’t let all that messy data (that Dr. Bauer has presented) get in the way of her belief that HIV=AIDS=DEATH.

  6. Katrina Joseph said

    Dr. Bauer,
    I am sorry to harp on this, but you are in my field, i.e. Blood Banking. (I am also hold a doctorate).
    With the following statement, you contradict what you write to me above:
    ” i.e. genetic property: suggestions that something in ancestral African genes renders CD4 cells more prone to infection by and killing by “HIV”. Those attempts are less than convincing, to put it mildly”
    You admit (with the scikle cell comment) and with the fact that you acknowledge that people who are Jk(a-b-) do not get malaria, that there in fact can be genetic pre-dispositions. I read your blog frequently, and I am usually perplexed by your logic. However, now that you are in my realm, I had to comment.
    I would also like for you to clarify your statment above, that: “The racial disparities in prevalence and incidence of “HIV” are the same among blood donors…” I will not even finish the quote, since it completely breaks apart with blood donors. How can you make the statment about blood donors, when, in fact, since 1987, we have severely curtailed even those whom are capable of donation! And while I am on the subject, how do you rationalize the fact that in the beginning of HIV, many hemophiliacs got HIV from lyophilised Factor VIII, and now, and since we severely changed the way we collect blood and process Coag Factors, that now Hemophiliacs are not at risk?
    Katrina Joseph

    • Henry Bauer said

      Katrina:

      I already said, “I’m not arguing that there can never be genetic traits that predispose or protect from particular infections. I’m saying that people can’t be genetically predisposed to be both more and also less susceptible to a given pathogen.” All you are repeating is that there can be disease-relevant genetic predispositions. Can you cite a genetic predisposition that both protects AND fails to protect against a given disease?

      I cannot in any given sentence or post include everything I’ve written that’s relevant. That “HIV+” is not sexually transmitted is shown by innumerable data sets where age, sex, race, and geography determine the relative frequencies of “HIV+”. Everything I write has to be seen in that context, I build on that conclusion.

      The same conundrum is seen among the blood donors — please note, Table 4 are data for 2004, I don’t understand why you bring in 1987: those who are least well screened against “HIV+”, the first-time donors, get “infected” at significantly later ages than those who have been best screened. How do you make that jibe with “HIV+” as resulting from risky sexual behavior?

      Root-Bernstein and Duesberg in particular have written in great detail about “HIV” and hemophiliacs. Based on those extensive discussions, I do not accept that hemophiliacs ever “got HIV”.

      Can you cite any publication in which “HIV” virions have been isolated direct from any hemophiliac, “HIV+” individual, or AIDS patient?

  7. Katrina Joseph said

    Dr. Bauer,
    I am so glad you asked. I need only cite the 1995 SCIENCE article by Jon Cohen “The Duesberg Phenomenon” in which Cohen directly presented 5 pieces of evidence directly to Dr. Duesberg, evidence Dr. Duesberg specifically asked for. One piece in particular dealt with hemophiliacs. However, for every single piece of evidence that Jon Cohen gave to Dr. Duesberg, Dr. Duesberg re-clarified his requested evidence. I would love for you to read that exact article and make that a blog. I believe that Jon Cohen is a very respected journalist. A respected science journalist, I might add. Unlike journalists such as Celia Farber or Liam Scheff, who are more investigative and less likely to understand the science. Jon Cohen is extremely reputable.
    Thank you again,
    Katrina Joseph

    • Henry Bauer said

      Katrina:

      PLEASE: What I asked was, ‘Can you cite any publication in which “HIV” virions have been isolated direct from any hemophiliac, “HIV+” individual, or AIDS patient?’

      The Cohen articles don’t do that. They are, by the way, in 1994 (volume 266, 9 December) and not 1995. I will not respond to any further remarks from you that evade my question or are otherwise irrelevant, though I reserve the right to approve such remarks in case other readers care to try to keep you on point.

  8. Sadun Kal said

    I suspect that Katrina isn’t really familiar with that side of HIV/AIDS skepticism due to the attention Duesberg gets. Maybe she isn’t aware that the question you asked has basically nothing to do with Duesberg. This might be of some help: https://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/hiv-has-never-been-isolated-from-aids-patients/

  9. Martin said

    Hi Dr. Bauer, I’m so glad you recognized without actually saying so that K. Joseph is more than likely an establishment mole. Apparently Joseph was not interested in directly addressing your question : ‘Can you cite any publication in which “HIV” virions have been isolated direct from any hemophiliac, “HIV+” individual, or AIDS patient?’ The answer is evident in the question — there aren’t any. HIV acolytes like Joseph (assuming K Joseph is who she says she is) derive their data from the results of unvalidated HIV-antibody tests and then report their findings from there. Actually, the statistics of HIV positives is not a result of infection from a virion, but a report of the prevalence of testing. Without confirmed isolation of the accused virion, there is no way to know if anyone had actually been infected. I believe that the establishment suspects they are sitting on a house of cards.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Martin:

      Yes, the “epidemic” of “HIV/AIDS” is actually an epidemic of TESTING, whereby a strikingly unspecific set of tests tells healthy people that they are ill: especially if they’re black; especially if they’re 35-45 years of age; especially if they live in large cities; especially if they’re pregnant, or have had an anti-tetanus shot recently, or a vaccination against flu…

      The tests are really the central problem from which everything else flowed.

  10. Matt said

    Katrina,
    In answer to your question about hemophiliacs, the reason that hemophiliacs do not test HIV + as often as they did in the 1980s is that their treatment has improved immeasurably since then. First, blood today is purified — making foreign proteins in the blood and the frequent infections a thing of the past. As early as 1985, it was shown that eliminating CMV from the blood supply reduced the probability of transfusion-associated AIDS. Also, hemophiliacs are not treated as frequently with corticosterioids, gold salts, and the other immunosuppressive drugs. This study from 1990 shows that capacity to produce interleukin 2 (a measure of immune function) is impaired in both seropositive and seronegative hemophiliacs.
    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120732943/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
    The improved treatment of hemophiliacs is the reason they are not testing HIV+ and are living longer, the reason is not that the blood supply gets tested for “HIV”.

  11. davidcrowe said

    The following recent paper:

    Gouws E et al. The epidemiology of HIV infection among young people aged 15-24 years in southern Africa. AIDS. 2008 Dec; 22 Suppl 4: S5–16.

    has the following information:

    Table 1 shows the ratio of female HIV positivity versus male for the 15-19 age group and the 20-24 age group in several sub-Saharan African countries. If 10% of females were positive and 5% of males, the ratio would be 2.0. The pairs of ratios (age 15-19 followed by age 20-24) are, for all countries provided, Botswana (3.16 2.88); Lesotho (3.43 2.15); Malawi (9.25 3.38); South Africa 2002 (1.75 2.13); South Africa 2005 (2.94 3.98); Swaziland (5.37 3.11); Zambia 2001-2 (3.47 3.70); Zambia 2007 (1.58 2.27); Zimbabwe 2001-2 (5.05 2.84); Zimbabwe 2005-6 (2.00 2.81). The medians were 3.30 and 2.86. In other words, in every country measured, more young women than young men were HIV-positive with ratios ranging between 1.58 and 9.25 (15-19 year olds in Malawi). Yet, in all groups, measures of sexual promiscuity were higher in men, not women. For example, in 15-19 year olds in Malawi, 29.1% of men reported having sex before they were 15 in 2000 but only 16.5% of women. In 2004 the percentages were 18% and 14.1%. The percentage of Malawian 15-24 year olds who reported more than one sexual partner in the last year were 11.8% for men in 2000 and only 1% for women.

    – David Crowe

  12. Dave said

    Hi Henry,

    I give you credit for being so patient and civil with obvious trolls. You write:

    The tests are really the central problem from which everything else flowed.

    True. And, recall that the “test” was designed to screen blood, i.e., you get a blood sample, you test it with Gallo’s antibody test, you get a “positive” result, you throw it out, and protect the vast blood supply.

    The problem was super-charged when the “screening” test morphed into a de facto “diagnostic” test, where now, the people testing “positive” were told, basically: (1) not only are we rejecting your blood, but (2) you are infected with a deadly virus and (3) you’re probably gay and lying to us. Have a nice day.

    The 1984 vortex of cancer-virus hunting, homophobia, fear of germs, fear of contaminated blood supply, reckless drug use, and pursuit of patent money and Nobel prizes, was truly a perfect storm.

  13. Matt said

    David,
    At first glance, this data is convincing. However, it does not stand scrutiny. The hypothetical HIV is said to be transmitted much more effectively from men to woman than from woman to men. That would explain this paradox…..

  14. Dave said

    Let me offer an analogy about HIV anti-body tests, and why their use as a “diagnostic” test is tragic and scandalous beyond belief:

    1. At JFK airport in NY, after 9/11, you set the “metal detector” test to high sensitivity to screen out nearly all people with metal objects, including zippers and earings. The objective is to protect the airline flights from hijacking by terrorists.

    2. Because of the high sensitivity of the test, only people wearing leather sandals, shorts and tee shirts get thru. Despite the 100fold headaches and delays of plane travel, you declare victory with the new policy — no new terrorist hijackings have occurred.

    3. But, for every person who gets rejected from airline flights because of some metal object — you declare them to be a potential terrorist, stigmatize them with a Scarlet “T,” and send them to Guantanamo Bay prison without a trial.

  15. Sadun Kal said

    Matt,

    >”The hypothetical HIV is said to be transmitted much more effectively from men to woman than from woman to men. That would explain this paradox…”

    I’m not so sure.

    According to the data presented about Malawi, we got only 1 out of 100 women who had sex with more than 1 man, let’s assume that this 1% tested positive. According to my very simplistic estimates* 8 to 9 out of 100 women and 3 to 4 out of 100 men are “positive”. If we exclude the woman with multiple partners, 7 to 8 “positive” women with only 1 partner had to have a “positive” man as a partner. But there aren’t enough “positive” men to do the job; 4 “positive” women with 1 partner are left with “negative” partners.

    What happens there? What am I missing?

    It appears to me that:

    a) The tests are useless.
    b) The data are useless.
    c) Both are useless.
    d) My simplistic analysis is useless.
    e) Combinations of the above choices.

    *: The HIV prevalence in Malawi is estimated to be around 12% apparently:

    And I made up the 9/3, 8/4 ratios according to the data from David Crowe. 9/3 is supposed to be closer to the average reality.

    • Henry Bauer said

      David (Crowe), Matt, Sadun Kal:

      M/F ratios are among the data that simply make no sense under HIV/AIDS theory. In the USA, M/F ratios for HIV+ are always at their lowest around the early teens, and increase from there to both lower and higher ages; indeed, in the lower teens females often test positive more often than males.

  16. Sadun Kal said

    I should add that this was my first time where I tried to make sense of the data. So I have no experience at all with such things. If what I wrote above is idiotic then don’t hesitate to say so, I won’t mind. What I wrote was just how I perceive it with my limited brain power.

    I also want to say that I believe that some parts of the comments about Katrina Joseph wouldn’t be approved if they were statements about dissident commentators. The opposite equivalent of “establishment mole”, “HIV acolyte”, “troll” etc. wouldn’t be welcome against us “denialists” around here I think. I get a feeling that there is a double-standard.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Sadun Kal:

      Re double standard, I do edit out some “flaming”, but I admit to being more lenient with sensible comments than with off-point ones.

  17. Michael said

    Katrina,

    Glad to know that you are MT ASCP, SBB (Specialty in Blood Banking). As such, I would love to know your thoughts on the following:

    Before he passed away, another, even more renowned SSB (Specialist in Blood Banking) than yourself, Dr. Alfred Hässig, (1921-1999), former Professor of Immunology at the University of Bern, and former director Swiss Red Cross blood banks had this to say:

    “The sentence of death accompanying the medical diagnosis of AIDS should be abolished.” (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)

    “In the virological research, so much money is invested, and the research people want to stay in that area because if you deviate to research in other directions probably other people come in and must be funded.” (Meditel 1992)

    “Virologist have nothing new to offer. They keep coming up with excuses, they find constant growth and change in the virus structure, it evades, attacks, strange things, but none of them has the courage to explain properly how these things could possibly be so.” (Continuum Jan/Feb 1996)

    “AZT (anti-viral AIDS medicine) has, in countless cases, brought about the inevitable and slow asphyxiation of the patient’s body cells. The doctors wrongly diagnose the fatal consequences of AZT medication as AIDS following a prior HIV infection. Treatment with AZT and allied toxic substances may be equivalent to joining a suicide squad with a time fuse.”

    “It is the duty of every doctor to preserve life at any cost — and not death-curse people based on any test so they are so frightened they kill themselves. I am sad to say that these voodoo methods were practised despite there never being any proof that the detected antibodies are an indication of mortality in all diagnosed people. I consider it medical malpractice to push patients into dying by prophesying an early death. We are medical scientists, not prophets!”

    I gladly offer a penny for your thoughts on the words of Dr. Hässig, Katrina.

  18. Dave said

    Sandun Kal seems like a righteous man.

    I apologize for referring to Katrina Joseph as a “troll” and retract my comment.

    High standards are good. True, they are hard to meet, when the other side fights so dirty. But, if Dr. B and Mr. K can maintain class and dignity in this epic scandal, so can I.

    My take on AIDS:

    1. The tests are unreliable
    2. The drugs are too toxic
    3. The surrogate markers are murky at best.

  19. Anthony said

    Katrina Joseph-

    As a hemophiliac who has been wrongly diagnosed at ‘risk for death’ since the HIV tests were introduced, perhaps it would be of benefit for you to learn the reason WHY I am alive and healthy today. Fortunately for me I refused all of the toxic anti-retroviral meds from the beginning that had been enforced on a prophylactic basis to my peers. In doing so my life was spared…

    I personally watched many hemos suffer horrible side effects and die unnecessarily from the drugs. I say with firm authority as an eye witness to you that most (if not all) of these patients would be alive today had they not taken the toxic medications prescribed to them. Ask yourself WHY hemophiliacs started to die en masse in significant numbers only AFTER HIV was discovered in 1983? If a retrovirus was the cause of AIDS, would we not have noticed their collective premature deaths before 1983?…Also ask yourself WHY hemophiliacs did not die from KS (Kaposi’s Sarcoma) and PC Pneumonia, the two original AIDS-defining diseases?

    Are you aware that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) admitted with unequivocal logic in a January 1994 Fact Sheet that Factor VIII or other blood products COULD NOT be carrying infectious HIV:

    “In order to obtain data on the survival of HIV, laboratory studies have required the use of artificially high concentrations of laboratory virus…the amount of virus studied is not found in human specimens or any place in nature…it does not spread or maintain infectiousness outside its host”

    “Although these unnatural concentrations of HIV can be kept alive under precisely controlled and limited laboratory conditions, CDC studies have shown that drying of even these high concentrations of HIV reduces the number of infectious viruses by 90 to 99% within several hours…

    Since the HIV concentrations used in laboratory studies are much higher than those actually found in blood or other body specimens, DRYING OF HIV-INFECTED HUMAN BLOOD OR OTHER BODY FLUIDS REDUCES THE THEORETICAL RISK OF ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSMISSION TO THAT WHICH HAS BEEN OBSERVED — ESSENTIALLY ZERO”

  20. Anthony said

    Researcher Alex Russell of the UK with cold hard facts and logic completely shreds the long held fiction of “infectious HIV” as the causative agent of death in Hemophiliacs. He also explains how the use of AZT itself and known factor VIII impurities worked like a “double-edged sword” dramatically increasing hemophiliac mortality rates…

    “In the nearly 200,000 published scientific papers on HIV/AIDS not one claims to have found a titre of more than 10 infectious particles per cubic ml of blood/plasma (and even this negligible titre was based on surrogate markers!). There is no way that these negligible amounts of HIV, even if proven to exist, could have contaminated so much factor VIII that virtually all the hemophiliacs could be infected with HIV. As Prof. Peter Duesberg rightly pointed out, the average amount of virus claimed to be present in the plasma or blood of an HIV-infected individual stands at between 1 and 1.7 infectious viral particles per cubic ml, which is absolutely negligible.

    Thus, paucity of virus rules out the suggestion that HIV was transmitted to so many hemophiliacs in a comparatively short space of time”

    On Observed Immune Suppression in Hemophiliacs from Factor VIII and the role ‘KILLER AZT’ played in their sudden increased mortality rates —

    “It was the 99 percent impurities in factor VIII that caused the immune suppression (AIDS) seen in hemophiliacs. Hence, the early discovery that seroconversion in hemophiliacs seems to depend on the amount and duration of consumption — it is age- and dose-related. They were dependent on a product that would eventually kill them. Also as Duesberg cynically observed, ‘Even hemophiliacs are not immortal’

    “The introduction of AZT — administered in enormous doses — rapidly killed many hemophiliacs. Their premature deaths exactly coincided with the fast tracking of AZT to hemophiliacs on ‘compassionate’ grounds in 1986-7..

    Hemophiliac mortality increased only after the introduction of AZT in 1986…Only Duesberg’s theory can expain why the EXPLOSION of hemophiliac mortality should occur on the heels of HIV testing. The cytotoxic pharmaceutical drugs and psychological terror that invariably accompany a positive HIV test also contributed to the increase mortality”

    “Ironically the very original suggestion that hemophiliacs were proof of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis can now be used to deconstruct this redundant and failed paradigm. There is absolutely no way that HIV could have been transmitted via commercial clotting factors”

  21. Martin said

    Another Africa paradox is that virtually the only individuals that received the ELISA test are females in pregnancy clinics — the rest, mostly males, get presumptively diagnosed according to the Bangui definition of HIV infection. And as Dr. Bauer has pointed out in previous posts, the numbers are extrapolated and put into a computer model of how many people will be infected and die from AIDS.

  22. LaVaughn said

    Martin:

    For that reason I never know quite what to make of any statistics regarding Africans. To try to find any meaning at all in stats, like the ones David Crowe presents above, I’d want to know that all the subjects were individually tested, not diagnosed on clinical criteria only, and whether there was some sort of confirmatory test, in as much as that’s possible, to screen out false positives, due to exposure to micobacteria, or other known crossreactions common in Africa. Then, at least, I’d feel comfortable that they were being evaluated fairly against similar populations in Western nations. Not saying that any of the stats are trustworthy, but Africa I’m particularly wary of when it comes to stat gathering.

  23. Dave said

    Africa is simple.

    1. It is an extremely poor continent.
    2. It still suffers from the residual effects of colonial exploitation
    3. It still suffers from extreme poverty, ill-nutrition and political instability, if not civil wars.

    4. Malnutrition and lack of clean water probably account for most of the morbidity and mortality, that has recently been subsumed under the category of “AIDS”.

    5. Of course, labelling millions of mostly dark folks as having AIDS serves several large agendas: (1) it creates a pharmaceutical market for lots of drugs (can’t have medicine without “disease”), (2) it unleashes a lot of foreign gov’t aid and (3) it enables rich, white Hollywood actors to fly down there, get a few nice photo-ops with sick black kids, put on a red ribbon, and then come home.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Dave, LaVaughn:

      One big trouble is that so many harmful things are done by well-intentioned but misguided people. The mistake, HIV = AIDS, started with a breakdown in medical-science research that came about because of political considerations. The mistake spurred activism whose pressure made fast action politically desirable — but such rapidity is not usually helpful to good science. Thereafter increasing numbers of careers became entangled with the belief that HIV = AIDS, and drug companies began to reap huge profits from it, and the snowball rolled.

      As with too many social problems, snowballs become Gordian knots, and untangling seems impossible until someone finds a way to cut through the mess. Heaps of data show that “HIV” cannot be indicted for having caused 1980s AIDS, but the idea that the mainstream could be wrong is literally unthinkable for those caught up in it careerwise. And it’s easy to see why: How can anyone cope with the realization that they’ve spent a well-intentioned career actually doing untold harm?

      Much easier to regard dissidents as kooks or worse.

  24. Cathy said

    “Thereafter increasing numbers of careers became entangled with the belief that HIV = AIDS, and drug companies began to reap huge profits from it, and the snowball rolled.”
    Yes, Prof Bauer, and my step-sister is one of them and works with a charity in Nigeria. Had I any kind of dialogue with her, I’d argue our corner but my interaction with her is limited to my visits to the UK (hint — not very often).
    Ironically, she worked many years ago (mid-’80s) in Kenya with a doctor who said AIDS was not a STD — go figure!

  25. Katrina Joseph said

    Michael,
    Are you truly aware of who this man was and what he did? Here is a link to an article by The New York Times. From back in 1982 he knowingly allowed HIV infected blood to be processed and sent out. 8 hemophiliacs sued him and four died before it ever got to trial. You call him “renowned” I call him, infamous, at that is being nice.
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E1D8143CF933A15752C1A96F958260
    Also, your first quote from him is that “death sentence of HIV should be abolished.” Well, it has been. Thanks to HAART, this is now a chronic manageable disease.
    The other quotes from him are just “Karry Mullis’esque” at best. And none of them have anything to do with blood banking, to top it off!
    Sincerely,
    Katrina Joseph

  26. LaVaughn said

    On Hassig, I’m a little confused. Admittedly, I’m really not familiar with this case. In looking at the New York Times article, I don’t understand how “A court here found that starting in 1982, Dr. Hassig knew of the risk that blood products could transmit the virus that causes AIDS,” when said virus wasn’t even determined to be the probable cause until 1984, or even discovered by Montagnier until 1983. Is this simply a case of very clumsy wording at the Times (a disturbingly common occurrence) or am I missing something?

  27. Matt said

    He saw no need to protect them from the hypothetical HIV. And he thought blood heating was bad for hemophilia, so he did not use it. As for their deaths, it was either AZT or the hemophilia itself. However, according to the orthodoxy, anyone who is HIV+ dies of AIDS.

  28. Dave said

    With this comment, Katrina Joseph has shown herself to be a typical AIDS-robot who uncritically parrots what is told to her:

    Thanks to HAART, this is now a chronic manageable disease.

    You obviously haven’t read (Reiseler, JAIDS, 2003)

    “During follow-up, 675 patients experienced a grade 4 event (11.4 per 100 person-years); 332 developed an AIDS event (5.6 per 100 person-years); and 272 died (4.6 per 100 person-years). The most common grade 4 events were liver related (148 patients, 2.6 per 100 person-years). Cardiovascular events were associated with the greatest risk of death ..”

    In short, HAART wrecks your liver and causes heart attacks, and causes more injury (675 patients) than your dreaded virus (332 patients).

    Or perhaps you should read something more recent:

    “Antiretroviral drug-related liver injury (ARLI) is a common cause of morbidity, mortality and treatment discontinuation in HIV-infected patients…Virtually every licensed antiretroviral medication has been associated with liver enzyme elevations, although certain drugs may cause liver injury more frequently than others…Several major mechanisms of ARLI have been described, including metabolic host-mediated injury, hypersensitivity reactions, mitochondrial toxicity, and immune reconstitution phenomena…The severity of ARLI may range from the absence of symptoms to liver decompensation, and the outcome can range from spontaneous resolution to liver failure and death” —Soriano, Antiretroviral drugs and liver injury. AIDS. 2008 Jan 2;22(1):145-7.

    You stigmatize people with a phony “HIV” diagnosis, scare them into taking toxic drugs, and then they die from the drugs, you blame it on the virus.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Katrina:

      Supplementing citations from Dave — I’ve often cited from p. 13 of the January 2008 NIH Treatment Guidelines:

      “In the era of combination antiretroviral therapy, several large observational studies have indicated that the risk of several non-AIDS-defining conditions, including cardiovascular diseases, liver-related events, renal disease, and certain non-AIDS malignancies [97-102] is greater than the risk for AIDS in persons with CD4 T-cell counts >200 cells/mm3; the risk for these events increases progressively as the CD4 T-cell count decreases from 350 to 200 cells/mm3.”

      It’s official, in other words, that the risk from the drugs is greater than the risk from AIDS, under the latest HAART treatment.

  29. Michael said

    Katrina, you said: “Thanks to HAART, this is now a chronic manageable disease”.

    Certainly we both agree that current HAART drug therapies are far less toxic than high-dosage AZT-monotherapy, which was common from 1987 to 1995, was.

    I do find it interesting that you now consider testing HIV positive to be a “chronic manageable disease” that is solely due to HAART drugs, but how do you account for the CDC’s claim that 50% of Americans do NOT even take any HIV drugs, yet they are not dropping like flies either.

    And, of course, how do you account for the fact that the years (87 to 95) of high-dosage AZT-monotherapy are the EXACT YEARS of the highest death-rates in the US?

    However, is it realistic to compare the death rates during the years of high-dose AZT-monotherapy to the current death-rates of those who take HAART drugs, and conclude from this comparison of apples and oranges that the current therapies are the sole reason HIV positivity is now considered “chronic manageable”? Isn’t the comparison a bit like comparing shooting someone in the head compared to stabbing them multiple times, and concluding that because they are being stabbed instead of shot in the head, that their stab wounds are now “chronic” and “‘manageable”?

    And what do you think of Dr. Hassig’s statement: “I consider it medical malpractice to push patients into dying by prophesying an early death. We are medical scientists, not prophets!” Do you, Katrina, think it is a good idea for doctors, and people such as yourself, to continue to tell patients that they must all either take HAART drugs or they will die? Do you think that prophesying death onto hiv positives is healthy for them?

    Also, Katrina, I realize that you are not a medical doctor or drug researcher and that you likely would not be well aware of placebo effect, but do you not find it interesting and perhaps even suspicious that during the years when patients were told they would die that most of them then did so, and when they were told they likely would live that they then did so? And are you aware that not even a single HIV drug or HAART drug since high-dosage AZT has EVER gone through any testing against placebo? The researchers claim that it would be “unethical to withhold treatment”, while they disregard that even the CDC claims 50% of American HIV-positives do not even take the drugs, despite the fact that the government will pay for them for anyone who cannot afford them.

    I find it quite strange, Katrina, that the 50% of American HIV-positives who do not even bother with the drugs seem to have a fully manageable health situation as well. How about you, Katrina? Do you not find this strange, that current HIV positives who choose not to take HAART too are for the most part not coming down sick or deathly ill like they did in the early ’80s when all believed that every HIV diagnosis meant quick and sure death?

  30. Why read the Treatment Guidelines? The financial disclosures tell me all I need:
    http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/contentfiles/Adult_Roster_Disc_Feb2009.pdf

    • Henry Bauer said

      David Crowe:

      I’m shocked! SHOCKED! Surely you’re not implying that conflicts of interest have any influence over decisions that MEDICAL SCIENTISTS make?

  31. Katrina Joseph said

    I am sorry people, but I will make no further comments. My last thread was not posted by Dr. Bauer. As I am being cesored, I do not feel this is the place to discuss these issues.
    Why censor, Dr. Bauer?
    I must assume you prefer to have drones who blindly agree with what you say.
    Sincerely,
    Katrina Joseph

    • Henry Bauer said

      Katrina:

      Theatre Guy Z has answered you for me. You were evading questions and your “citations” were vague and inaccurate. As I said in a private e-mail, this was not furthering substantive discussion.

  32. Theatre Guy Z said

    For Katrina:

    I came to this investigation of the “other side of AIDS” simply to reserach potential for a performing arts project. Certainly this is a source for great “drama”.

    After nearly four years of research, I am continually nudged toward the “dissident” side – and one of the main reasons is that orthodox thinkers on HIV/AIDS rarely answer my questions…or any questions. It is absolutely amazing to me. Simple requests are made to cite examples – and answers never come back. What does comes back is AIDSpeak -it’s almost Orwellian.

    When people truly have conviction in their beliefs – in the results of their research, they have little need for hyperbole, sarcasm, vitriol, and acerbic commentary. Confident people are calm. But I have found time and time again that the orthodoxy gets absolutely hysterical when confronted with what to me is often 5th grade level questions about contradictions in the HIV/AIDS paradigm.

    When people like Dr. Wainberg call for constitutional ammendments so as to imprison people like Peter Duesberg, I am convinced that he is running scared. No sane, confident person with any credibility behaves that way. Liars behave that way.

    Luckily, I have found a few medical practitioners here in Portland, OR who will be honest when I ask about contradictions; they simply say, “I don’t know.”

    And that is not a bad “truth” to have. “I don’t know” is a great place from which to continue research into this…but the orthodoxy does not do that…it won’t admit the “I don’t know” and so people keep dying and suffering from what you seem to think is a miracle: HAART.

    Wake up. Be honest with yourself. And an answer the questions. And if your honest answer is “I don’t know.” So be it.

  33. Sadun Kal said

    I don’t think that any of the readers of this blog desire to be accused of being drones. I also don’t believe that Henry Bauer’s desire is to create such an environment for himself. Moderation for the sake of constructive discussion is not to be confused with censorship.

    Nevertheless if there’s still someone out there who claims to be unfairly censored in this blog then I’d be willing to examine their case myself if they email me, and lend my support to them if it turns out that there was indeed some serious censorship going on. Perhaps that way we can improve the level of objectivity around here, if it isn’t already optimal. Please don’t bother to email me if you already know that the moderation was justified though.

  34. David said

    Dr. Bauer and others here,

    I think one of the greatest arguments against HIV theory is the contrast between the esentially flat HIV-incidence line from 1985-today, and the up-and-down AIDS-prevalence curve (or shall I say “curves”) in the same time-period. I have never heard anyone from the other side try to explain this contradiction. Do you know how many cumulative AIDS diagnoses there were by 1995, the end of the ten-year latentcy period for the 1 million people who tested positive in 1985?

    Unless that number is close to 1 million, how can anyone claim that HIV causes AIDS, especially considering that about half of all positive people have no idea they are positive and thus are not taking so called “life-saving” meds? I learned about this contradiction in HIV theory by reading Rebecca Culshaw’s book, yet she did not provide a number for the cumulative number of AIDS cases by 1995. Would be great to find out how far off the actual numbers were compared to what would have been predicted in ’85.

    David

    • Henry Bauer said

      David (blakejones):

      CDC 1995 report gives 513,486 cumulative AIDS cases by end of 1995. You can get all the CDC reports at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasrlink.HTM
      But I think they claim 1/4, not 1/2, of HIV+ people don’t know it.
      The “1 million” is HIV prevalence, not annual incidence — but, of course, “they” have no explanation for why it’s been essentially constant for 25 years.

  35. Tracy D. Ellis said

    Hi Katrina,
    Thank you for your posts. Orthodox defenders have brought to light some of the most beautiful human hearts I have ever witnessed. It is these hearts that lent me the courage to go against my orthodox beliefs and listen to my body.
    My body never felt unusually sick before the AZT.
    I do have lifelong history of severe chronic allergies.
    I have 10yrs of labs in Santa Ana Medical Clinic of basically measuring how a healthy body manages HAART side effects (some rather horrible and long term).
    I have just done my first labs since stopping HAART over 4yrs ago.
    I was diagnosed with advanced HIV 17 yrs ago and diagnosed with AIDS 14yrs ago.
    Do you care about my current labs?

    The docs put me on AZT monotherapy and within 1yr I went from being an ex-body-builder still carrying “lots” (15-20pounds) of extra muscle to something out of a concentration camp (severe wasting), and that’s not even getting into what it “felt” like. looking back I now find it strange that NOBODY mentioned it might be the damned chemo. At least with HAART after months of crippling explosive diarrhea and severe chronic fatigue the docs said it might be the drugs. Though they did not suggest I stop taking them because of “good numbers”.
    Katrina, I tell you from my heart that not a lot has changed, and I see little orthodox interest in ferreting out more cases like mine from the herd of black-box pill-poppers. This fact alone fills me with horror. I do not want anyone to have to go through what I did.
    Do you care enough about people like me to continue to post? If you are right and people like Dr. Bauer are wrong, you could save my life — or you may learn something from me to save a life in your clinic. I am worth saving.
    Peace
    Tracy

  36. David said

    Dr. Bauer,

    I had thought the total number of cumulative cases by ’95 was lower, but that number is still far too low for HIV theory to be true, unless close to half of the HIV-positive people were “false positives”. Either way, it is embarassing for the orthodoxy to have to explain the discrepancy between HIV prevalence in ’85 and AIDS prevalence ten years later in ’95.

    I imagine the orthodoxy might argue that the 8-to-10-year latency period is only an average, and that thousands of AIDS cases would have developed years after ’95. However, if there were 1 million HIV-positive people in the US in ’85, surely there were at least hundreds of thousands of positive people in the years preceding ’85. Thus, almost all of these hundreds of thousands of positive people would have surely developed AIDS by ’95, especially given that so many of them would not have had access to “life-saving” medication. So the 513,486 cumulative AIDS diagnoses by ’95 seems even smaller than one would expect if HIV is indeed the cause of AIDS.

    The only other possible explanations I can think of are that the tests are indeed highly unspecific, or that treatment of HIV from 1986 onward prevented hundreds of thousands of people from developing AIDS. Given the now-agreed-upon consensus that HIV meds were not very effective prior to PIs and combination therapy or HAART, the latter argument seems weak at best.

    • Henry Bauer said

      David:

      Re cumulative AIDS cases— What the orthodoxy has never acknowledged is that CDC estimates of the number of HIV+ Americans has been on the order of 1 million ever since 1985. Even worse, after they developed software models, they have shown HIV+ numbers increasing steadily since the 1970s, disowning — without saying so — their earlier published estimates. The history of HIV numbers has been re-written by both UNAIDS and CDC. Anyone who looks at all their publications over the years can see that, yet they have never mentioned it or tried to justify the revisions.

  37. David said

    Dr. Bauer,

    Are you saying that they now argue that that total number of Americans infected with HIV was actually larger in the 70s and early 80s than they originally thought, or that the number of Americans who were positive was actually smaller in 85 than they thought? Thanks for your replies.

    David

    • Henry Bauer said

      They now ESTIMATE from their computer model that there were far fewer HIV+ Americans in the 1980s than they calculated at the time, using very reasonable methods.

  38. Katrina Joseph said

    Hey Dr. Bauer,
    You know that I am KJ.
    I just set up this account to try and post here, as I am sorry that I called you a KIKE on my blog, http://www.dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com
    I really am sorry, as my original intent was to go on the Joan Rivers/Lenny Bruce approach to “offensive” names. I realize now that has not worked, and my logic is now being ignored. The logicical me, while being judicious and pertinent to the message I am trying to get out, has been usurped by the humor I have tried to instill into this mundane dialogue.
    I am certain that I have the intellect and logic to add much insight to this topic, and now realize that my tactics have worked against me.
    I humbly prostate myself before you and beg that you allow my intellect thru on these discussions. I am prepared for my ass beating from your fans. I believe that I posess insight and intellect that will be beneficial for all involved.
    Please re-direct your problems with my logic to my original email address at hotmail, as I can not access the other website as it was not germaine to my intentions and I have forgotten the password.
    I am humbling myself before you and realize that your fans may copy/paste this pathetic attempt to get back into your good graces. However, in the pursuit of truth and helping others know what is real, I beseech and beg of your forgiveness.
    Sincerely,
    J. Todd DeShong.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Katrina DeShong:

      Several regular contributors will be interested in this unmasking, which a few had already diagnosed. I’m afraid it will take some very substantive and constructive activity on your part to unblot your copybook.

  39. Matt said

    I actually would never have guessed that DeShong is KJ. The only hint was “I must assume you prefer to have drones who blindly agree with what you say”. That is very much like him.

  40. Tracy D. Ellis said

    Thank you for posting again Katrina / Mr.DeShong I feel I lost a little innocence in assuming people are who they say they are. For that I again thank you

  41. Sadun Kal said

    Hmm. I guess I’m too naive or too optimistic sometimes. What’s the background story? What exactly triggered this unmasking?

    What disturbs me is that “Katrina Joseph” has also been posting on Clark Baker’s blog, claiming that one of “her” friends has close ties with Semmelweis and bla bla… So I think it’s more than just a way to bypass the security, it’s seems more like a deceit.

    Sometimes in addition to intellect and logic, one also needs a character I think.

    I also sincerely believe, as I repeatedly said before, that DeShong needs to take a break from all this and go on a holiday to some place without an internet connection.

  42. Stefan R. said

    I am speechless…….
    In my home, such behavior is called ‘insane’.
    DeShong, I am seriously worried. I think you should reconsider Sadun’s advice……..

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