HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Archive for April, 2009

“HIV/AIDS” deaths: often not from “HIV” nor from “AIDS”!

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/04/30

Among the charming — so to speak — aspects of HIV/AIDS theory and practice is the periodic changing of definitions and categories, for example, altering the age ranges for which numbers are reported, so that making comparisons becomes fraught with trying to disentangle the effects of those changes [for example, Living with HIV; Dying from What?, 10 December 2008].

Since “HIV is the virus that causes AIDS”, and CDC numbers (or rather, estimates from the Division of HIV/AIDS) are increasingly given in terms of “HIV/AIDS” cases, one might be forgiven for thinking that deaths from  “HIV disease” might be the same as deaths from “AIDS”. Not so:


“Deaths due to HIV disease, as reported on death certificates, are not exactly the same as deaths of persons with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) reported to the HIV/AIDS surveillance systems of health departments.
The AIDS case definition requires documentation of a low CD4 T-lymphocyte count or diagnosis of one of the approximately two dozen AIDS-defining illnesses. (The exact number of possible AIDS-defining illnesses depends on how they are split or grouped together). If information on the CD4 count is missing and no AIDS-defining illness was diagnosed, these persons cannot be counted as AIDS cases despite the fact that their deaths were attributed to HIV disease on their death certificates.”

Is there some good reason for this? Why shouldn’t exact, immediate, manifest, ACTUAL causes of death be reported to the HIV/AIDS surveillance systems? If “HIV-positive” people die from something that isn’t in the “AIDS” definition, surely it shouldn’t be reported as from “HIV disease”! Yet evidently it is.

“The crescent shape on the right includes the deaths of persons with AIDS attributed to causes unrelated to HIV infection (such as lung cancer or motor vehicle accidents).”

In her excellent book, Rebecca Culshaw pointed to this remarkable practice for which, again, it’s difficult to envisage a  really good reason.

“Because of improved treatment, survival after a diagnosis of AIDS has become longer, allowing a greater proportion (up to about 25%) of deaths of persons with AIDS to result from such other causes.”

. . .  “such other cause” including, to a notable extent, the “side” effects of antiretroviral drugs:
“In the era of combination antiretroviral therapy, . . . the risk of several non-AIDS-defining conditions, including cardiovascular diseases, liver-related events, renal disease, and certain non-AIDS malignancies . . . is greater than the risk for AIDS . . . .” (p. 13, January 2008; p. 21, November 2008 NIH Treatment Guidelines). And these Treatment Guidelines are saying that “non-AIDS” causes of “AIDS” deaths are >50%, not up to 25%.

“The crescent shape on the left represents deaths attributed to HIV disease among persons whose conditions did not meet the surveillance case definition for AIDS.”

What sleight of definitions and evidence is this? Just as with “HIV-associated lipodystrophy”, it has become increasingly popular among HIV/AIDS gurus to ascribe the death of every “HIV-positive” person to some influence exerted by “HIV”. Consider the insupportably irrational and vicious circularity: “AIDS” appeared and was defined as a collection of opportunistic infections said to be found in people whose immune systems had been ravaged by “HIV”. Up to 1987, those included almost no manifest illnesses other than  Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia or candidiasis or Kaposi’s sarcoma. Following the presumption that these “AIDS” cases were caused by “HIV”, however, an increasing number of other disease were classed as “HIV-caused” just because the affected individual tested “HIV-positive” — which might happen for a large variety of reasons, for example, having TB. It was this type of utterly unfounded inference that led to the invention of conditions like “HIV encephalopathy” and “HIV wasting syndrome” (CDC report for 1988) and eventually the catastrophic use of CD4 counts as a supposed measure of immune deficiency. So nowadays, we have this set of deaths attributed to “HIV” only because a person is “HIV-positive” when he dies!

The relative areas in this figure (measured by counting squares on a grid) are: left crescent ~65, right crescent ~210, common area ~495; total area (common plus both crescents) ~770
In other words, the common area represents ~495/770 = 65% of deaths being reported as either owing to AIDS or to “HIV disease”. But surely, if one talks of “HIV/AIDS”, that should apply to the common area only, shouldn’t it?
The right crescent plus common area, ~705, represents all “AIDS” cases; so of the deaths reported as “AIDS” , ~210/705 =  ~30% are actually from non-AIDS causes! (Though, as I said earlier, the NIH Treatment Guidelines suggest >50% rather than ~30%.)

Of course, the Figure shown aboveis purely schematic, but it’s worth noting these numbers to realize just what the implications are of what the CDC is confessing here: that official data about deaths from “HIV disease” or from “AIDS” cannot be taken at face value. This explains, at least in part, why “AIDS” deaths reported by CDC’s Division of HIV/AIDS for 2004 were 20% greater than those reported by the CDC’s Center for Health Statistics, ranging from 40% less for those under 13 to 40 % greater for those aged 55-64 [CDC versus CDC: Which data to believe?, 15 August 2008].

Best of luck to you, as you try to make sense of the press releases from CDC; or, for that matter, of their “Surveillance” Reports.

Posted in HIV absurdities, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV/AIDS numbers | Tagged: , , , | 22 Comments »

The final transformation: Kalichman has become Newton (Chapter 5 of Jekyll-Kalichman-Hyde-Newton)

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/04/27

When Dr. Jekyll first sampled his transformative potion, it caused his behavior to change, increasingly toward lack of civility and disdain of others. In time, these behavioral changes left their physical mark in a progressively increasing grossness of his fleshly features. At first these were seen only “under the influence”, whenever Jekyll deliberately, willfully assumed the persona of Hyde. But in the end, the process became irreversible, and Jekyll became Hyde physically as well as behaviorally.

A similar sad fate eventually overtook Kalichman. Having e-mailed as “Newton” for well over a year and with half-a-dozen dissidents, Kalichman became “Newton” in bodily reality as, in 2008, he registered for the Aneuploidy Conference organized in Berkeley by Peter Duesberg:


Having registered, Newton also attended. On p. 27 of “Denying AIDS”, he is seen with Peter Duesberg himself:


A closer examination of this picture shows that the identification on the name-tag of the person with Duesberg has been washed or blurred out. However, since Newton had registered and Kalichman didn’t, the inference is plain enough, this is Duesberg with Joseph C Newton. As Sadun Kal pointed out, Kalichman’s photo gallery atpicasa has another photo of the same person with Duesberg at the same meeting, but there the name tag does not have the name blurred out:


From the same meeting, yet another picture in this photo collection shows the same person with David Rasnick, with the name again clearly visible in the middle line of the name tag (though not readable at this resolution):


Once again, it seems, Kalichman/Newton are/is ignorant of how they/he leave(s) trails on the Internet ; in this case, a trail that demonstrates what appears to be a deliberate attempt, by blurring out the identifying name, to deceive readers of “Denying AIDS” about who Duesberg thought he was with in the photograph published in the book.

I was curious about how “cordial and inquisitive” (“Denying AIDS”, p. xiv) Kalichman/Newton had been with Duesberg:

10 March 2009, Bauer to Duesberg:
“Kalichman’s book has a photo with you, dated February 2008. When he talked with you, did he reveal that he was researching for a book criticizing ‘AIDS denialism’?”

18 March 2009, Duesberg to Bauer:
“…. I really overlooked your note about the Newton alias Kalichman case. So, certainly he didn’t say a word about/against ‘denialists’ at the Oakland cancer conference.
From the little I remember about him, he seemed rather obsequious re. the topic and proceedings of the aneuploidy-cancer meeting.”

So there’s another little confirmation of the transformation of Professor Kalichman into the Uriah-Heep-like persona of Newton: Duesberg recalled in the actual physical person of Newton the same obsequiousness that I’ve pointed to in so many of his e-mails, not to speak of his perpetual prevarication about his interests and intentions. It may be, of course, that the impression of obsequiousness was based in part on earlier e-mails by Newton to Duesberg, for example:

“Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:44:54 -0400
From: “Joseph Newton” <>
Subject: Asking for help
Hello Dr. Deusberg
I know you must be very busy and you must receive thousands of messages. I am hoping you can very quickly answer a question for me. I am a great admirer of your courage and scholarship on AIDS. I have become aware of some new thinking on alternative theories on AIDS set forth by Professor Henry Bauer at Virgina Tech. Are you familiar with his work and would see him as in line with your views? I want to know before taking too much in.
Thank you again.
Joe Newton, CT, USA”


“Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 23:33:35 -0400
From: “Joseph Newton” <>
Subject: Note from an Admirer

Hello Dr. Duesberg
I hope this note finds you well.

Mr. Crowe suggested that you may respond to my email. I am a student of Public Health following the developments in AIDS. It would appear to me that with recent events such as the publication of the Rodriguez paper in JAMA and the continued failings of tratments as well as the pile of failed vaccines, the HIV tower may be ready to fall. I am curious if this is how you see it and whether you are working on any new papers or books? Also, will you be speaking publicly anytime soon? My dream is to see you talk on AIDS.
My best to you and thank you for your time!!
Joseph C. Newton”

“Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:03:28 -0500
From: “Joseph Newton” <>
To: “peter duesberg” <>
Subject: Re: Note from an Admirer

Thank you so much for writing me back Dr. Duesberg. I know you must be very busy and I did not really espect you to have time.
I am in Connecticut and I would travel if I had the chance to see you.
I have so many questions. I would love the chance to talk with you – anytime any place.
One question that I am just burning to ask you is about whether there is a connection between your views on AIDS resulting from toxins (such as poppers, AZT, and unclean water) and cancer – where Aneuploidy also results from environmental hazards. Is there a connection there or I am just reading too much into your writings and your biography that Dr. Bialy wrote?
Again, thank you Dr. Duesberg, and anything that you can think of that someone like me can do to help shift the course of AIDS to the truth, please tell me.
All the best to you.

Not only obsequious, not only replete with fake typos, not only pretending to support “denialism”, but also looking for confirmation of Kalichman-Newton’s wacky attempt to see an “environment-causal” connection between Duesberg’s work on cancer and his views on AIDS.

“Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:01:09 -0500
From: “Joseph Newton” <>
To: “peter duesberg” <>
Subject: Re: Note from an Admirer

Hello again Dr. Duesberg. I am following up.
I have a cousin who lives in San Francisco and I may come out a visit. If I came to Berkely, can we have coffee? . . . .
Best to you Dr. Duesberg,

After the Aneuploidy conference in Berkeley, February 2008, Newton resumed his e-mail correspondence with Duesberg:

“Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 13:16:13 -0400
From: “Joseph Newton” <>
To: “peter duesberg” <>
Subject: Re: SCCR Conference – best way to reach us
Hello Dr. Duesberg
I hope you are doing well.
You may remember me from your Aneuploidy Conference.
I just saw this blub online, and I cannot tell if it is authentic. Will you really be in Washington on May 13?
See blub below. Thank you! Joseph 04252008/ gossip/pagesix/ hands_not_ so_bloody_ 108001.htm

April 25, 2008 – CELIA Farber, the maverick journalist vilified by the AIDS establishment for her controversial reporting, will be honored by the Semmelweis Society on May 13 in Washington, DC, with its Clean Hands Award — ‘which is an amazing irony, considering I am always accused of having blood on my hands,’ she laughed. Farber — whose story in Harper’s, ‘Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Science,’ caused an uproar two years ago — will address Congress along with Berkeley professor Peter Duesberg, who claims the HIV virus doesn’t cause AIDS. They’ll sign books after a screening of ‘The Constant Gardener,’ about a pharmaceutical company making a killing off AIDS drugs in Africa.”

“Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 08:28:45 -0400
From: “Joseph Newton” <>
To: “Peter DUESBERG” <>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Semmelweis Society Revised Mtn agenda for CME credit 5-5-08]

Hello Dr. Duesberg
I was hoping to go to DC to see you and Ms. Farber recv the awards. I had heard that in fact the tribunal was cancelled and that you and Ms. Farber experienced some negative responses. I suspect that is to be expected in such a forum. So I did not go.
I did read the article in Discover about you. That was simply wonderful.
Are you currently trying to get NIH funding again? I am so curious about that process. I have read Dr. Lang’s commentaries of your previous biased reviews.
I am surprised you havenot posted that grant proposal and the reviews on your website.
Are they available to learn from?
Thank you again and I hope to see you again soon.

Those e-mails would seem to provide the ultimate confirmation that it is indeed Joseph Newton who is pictured in Kalichman’s book with Duesberg at the Aneuploidy Conference.

Yet the photo of Kalichman in his  profile on bears an uncanny likeness to the Newton pictured with Duesberg. Evidently, by the beginning of 2008 the physical transformation of Kalichman into Newton was complete and irrevocable, warts and all.


Not only was Kalichman-Newton deceitful with the people about whom he was seeking information, he continues the deceitfulness with readers of “Denying AIDS”  by not letting them know that he never talked openly with any of his subjects. More than that, by publishing a photo of himself with Duesberg, he implies that author Kalichman spoke with Duesberg even though he didn’t, it was Joseph Newton with whom Duesberg was interacting.

I’ve pointed out that the Code of Ethics of the psychological profession bars deceit in research, unless it has been approved by an Institutional Review Board; in which case the deceived subjects are to debriefed as soon as the research is finished, and given the opportunity to withdraw any information gleaned from them. None of that happened.

It’s also rather troubling that Joseph Newton’s registration for the Aneuploidy Conference gives his contact information (street address and phone number) as Kalichman’s Social Psychology Department at the University of Connecticut. That suggests there were people in that Department who were aware of the continuing deception and colluded in it.

It’s perhaps even more troubling that Kalichman mentors graduate students, at least one of whom appears to have been aware of the deception he was practicing, since she attempted to become my “friend” on Facebook.


So much for Kalichman-Newton and Kalichman’s failures as to professional ethics. It remains, however, to point out how many plain errors of fact there are in the Kalichman book ghosted by Newton, how many wacky interpretations, and how badly written it is, to the extent that one is often baffled when trying to surmise what the author could mean.

Posted in HIV absurdities, Legal aspects, prejudice | Tagged: , , , , | 15 Comments »

One fact, two interpretations (Science Studies 104: “Theory-laden facts”)

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/04/26

When I changed my academic field of interest to Science Studies after a quarter century of research in electrochemistry, I had considerable difficulty in understanding, let alone appreciating, axioms and approaches taken for granted in the humanities and in the social sciences. The experience of putting together a multidisciplinary endeavor, a Center for the Study of Science in Society, taught me much — for example, how very difficult truly interdisciplinary efforts are, in part because academic disciplines are more like cultures than like abstract intellectual exercises. I gained further insights into those cultural differences through observing the criteria on which people in the disparate fields base their professional evaluations of one another (chapters 15 & 16, “Evaluations” & “Tribal Stereotypes”, in To Rise Above Principle: The Memoirs of an Unreconstructed Dean ).

The mantra, “facts are theory-laden”, which philosophers and sociologists in particular were wont to reiterate, gave me particular trouble for quite a long time. I’d spent a couple of decades doing or supervising experiments; reading numbers off meters or digital displays had never seemed to me problematic (apart from the inevitable range of stochastic uncertainty). The facts we observed in chemistry might not be perfectly precise numerically, but they were surely accurate, I thought, in the sense of truthfully representing the objects being studied. Yet philosophers had been arguing for many decades about this sort of thing, with something like a consensus having emerged that pure empiricism is impossible: You may “see” something as clearly and accurately as ever could be, and yet that doesn’t convey what the seen object actually “is”. A popular illustration of this is by means of ambiguous drawings:


Is it a duck looking to the left or a rabbit looking to the right? We “see” the object — black lines on white background — quite faithfully, but we aren’t sure what it is.

Applied to matters of science, consider the question of classifying things. Science really began as natural history, observing and classifying natural objects. Before modern chemistry and an understanding of the composition of materials was available, it was natural enough to classify by shape; but in that way 15th-century compendia of knowledge grouped together conical objects that, nowadays, we recognize as having no meaningful relation to one another, since they included belemnites (minerals), fossilized shark’s teeth (bits of once-living things), and axe- or arrow-heads (human artefacts). *

In other words, one cannot “objectively” recognize the significance of a given “fact”, or piece of evidence.

Facts do not speak for themselves.

An important corollary, directly pertinent to HIV/AIDS, is that controversies can persist over extended periods of time when a certain set of phenomena lends itself to opposing interpretations; see, for example, in my book about Loch Ness how every piece of evidence can be quite plausibly incorporated into the view that “The monster is a myth” (chapter 1) and equally also into the view that “The monster exists” (chapter 2).

When I was doing research in chemistry, it had seemed to me quite unproblematic, how to explain the data I gathered: either the explanation fitted with our prior understanding, or it pointed somewhere else; but I didn’t question that the facts spoke unequivocally. Well, I’ve learned otherwise. But many scientists who have not benefited from the wisdom of philosophy of science, or sociology of science, or science studies, continue to see nothing problematic in how they interpret data. That’s one of the huge problems with HIV/AIDS theory: its adherents and its groupies and its vigilantes see everything only from their own viewpoint and regard every other interpretation as simply wrong. How could “the facts” in “thousands of research papers” be “wrong”? Don’t those facts “speak for themselves”?

Well, of course, it’s not that the facts are necessarily wrong, it’s that they are equally able to “speak for themselves” a quite different explanation, namely, that “HIV” tests don’t detect a pathogen. They detect a wide range of antibodies (and in newer tests nucleic-acid bits) that correlate partly with heredity and partly with life experiences, particularly health challenges. Higher levels of “HIV” sometimes indicate poorer health, but not as a result of an infection; and in any case “HIV” is not the cause, it’s a reflection. In Dr. Christian Fiala’s nice analogy, testing “HIV-positive” is rather like running a fever.

Here’s one example where CDC researchers jumped to a conclusion on the basis of ambiguously interpretable facts. They had observed that in a group of young African men, mortality among the “HIV-positive” was higher than among the others, and they claimed this as proof that HIV causes death [Dondero and Curran, Lancet 343 (1994) 989-90]. They apparently forgot that association doesn’t prove causation; and they may well have lapsed into their ignorant supposition because they didn’t recognize that there’s an alternative explanation, namely, that those who are more ill in the first place are more likely to test “HIV-positive”, just as those who are ill are more likely to run a fever than those who are not ill.

That type of one-sided, blind misunderstanding is rampant throughout the literature of HIV/AIDS. Here’s another instance:
“Recurrent Pneumonia
With the exception of conditions included in the 1987 AIDS  surveillance case definition, pneumonia, with or without a  bacteriologic diagnosis, is the leading cause of HIV-related  morbidity and death (55, 56). In addition, several studies have shown  that persons with HIV-related immunosuppression are at an increased  risk of bacterial pneumonia (57-59). For example, one study found  that the yearly incidence rate of bacterial pneumonia among  HIV-infected IDUs without AIDS was five times that found in  non-HIV-infected IDUs (58). Recurrent episodes of pneumonia (two or  more episodes within a 1-year period) are required for AIDS case  reporting because pneumonia is a relatively common diagnosis and  multiple episodes of pneumonia are more strongly associated with  immunosuppression than are single episodes. For example, data from  the ASD Project indicate that the risk of an HIV-infected person  having had one episode of pneumonia in a 12-month period is  approximately five times higher among infected persons with CD4+  T-lymphocyte counts of less than 200/uL (320/2,411) than among those  with higher CD4+ T-lymphocyte counts (90/2,792). In contrast, data  from the same study indicate that the risk for multiple episodes of  pneumonia in a 12-month period is approximately 20 times higher among  HIV-infected persons with CD4+ T-lymphocyte counts of less than  200/uL (67/2,411) than among those with higher CD4+ T-cell counts  (4/2,792) (CDC, unpublished observations)” [emphases added].

I’ve highlighted the “facts” that are clearly open to the alternative explanation that people with bacterial pneumonia, and people with multiple episodes of pneumonia, are more likely to test “HIV-positive” and to have low CD4 counts than are people without those experiences. Pneumonia is the cause; “HIV-positive” status and low CD4 counts are effects, not causes.

Increasingly insistent in mainstream discourse is the drive for wider testing, even universal testing. Since it’s now believed that HAART reduces enormously the risk of passing on “HIV”, if all the “HIV-positive” people in the world could be identified and put on HAART, “HIV” could be wiped out! [Clare Wilson, “Are we about to eliminate AIDS?”, New Scientist, 19 February 2009, 38-41]

One problem, of course, is that HAART has dangerous “side”-effects, opening the ethical question of “treating” perfectly healthy people: “Persuading everyone with HIV to start therapy purely for public health reasons could be ethically dubious” [to put it mildly, not to say euphemistically]. “Perhaps the most medically contentious part of the elimination plan, in any country, is that all those diagnosed positive would begin antiretroviral treatment immediately. At present there is no firm evidence that HIV does any damage to an individual as long as their CD4 count is above 350. ‘There are great big ethical problems about recommending treatment to someone when it’s not clinically beneficial to that person’”.

Yes indeed. The analogy with eugenics springs to mind, sterilizing people with “poor genes” for the benefit of future generations. Here is one of the benefits of an education in Science Studies: the analogy with eugenics springs to mind. For those technically (in both senses) expert only in HIV/AIDS, it doesn’t spring to mind.

But I want here to look at the interpretation of facts, not at ethical questions:

“We know now that starting treatment earlier than at a CD4 count of 200 brings health benefits. As well as reducing the risk of opportunistic infections, a large study showed last year that people who began treatment with a CD4 count above 350 are less likely to develop conditions usually seen as unrelated to HIV, such as heart or kidney disease (The Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol 197, p 1133). Researchers now suspect that long-term HIV infection causes a low-level activation of the immune system that can damage the heart, kidneys and liver. For these reasons, the treatment threshold in wealthy nations is now 350.”

The “fact” is that “HIV-positive” people who begin HAART with CD4 > 350 develop organ failure at a lower rate than those whose CD4 is ≤200. The official explanation is that it’s better to attack “HIV” earlier, before health has deteriorated from CD4 > 350 to CD4 ≥ 200. But there’s a perfectly plausible alternative explanation:
IF HAART has “side” effects that include organ failure, and IF higher CD4 counts bespeak a healthier immune system, plausibly bespeaking better health in general, then higher CD4 counts protect against the “side” effects of HAART. When you treat healthier people with organ-failure-causing drugs, they’ll survive longer than if you administer organ-failure-causing drugs to people who are already ill.

But does HAART cause organ failure? The NIH Treatment Guidelines say so quite plainly (January 2008, p. 13):
“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.”

This is perfectly clear, isn’t it? Conditions that had never before been considered AIDS-defining, nor associated with “HIV”, threaten people on HAART more seriously than does being “HIV-positive”, the condition for which they are supposedly being “treated”. The higher the CD4 count when they start on these “treatments”, the less likely that the “side” effects will damage them. That’s the same “fact” as cited above from the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

But the notion that HAART rather than “HIV” is the major source of death nowadays is absolutely unpalatable, unthinkable for mainstream researchers and their hangers-on. There must be some other way of interpreting these “facts”. And sure enough there is: “Researchers now suspect that long-term HIV infection causes a low-level activation of the immune system that can damage the heart, kidneys and liver”.

Now, there’s absolutely no independent evidence for this “suspicion”. It’s precisely the sort of “ad hoc” hypothesis that is traditionally used to avoid admitting that a theory has been falsified. Since the mainstream has no doubt that “HIV” kills, and that HAART saves, there just has to be some way, like this one, to fit every fact to their theory.

But such “suspicions” should be tested. And there exists an available group of subjects on whom it can be tested almost immediately: the “long-term non-progressors” or “elite controllers” known to the mainstream, as well as the many “HIV-positive” people who belong to dissident organizations and who have remained healthy while avoiding antiretroviral drugs for two decades or more. A prospective study should compare the rate of death from organ failure among untreated “HIV-positives” with the rate of death from organ failure among people on HAART. One might also compare those rates with the rate of death from such organ failures in the population at large.


In medicine, which interpretation to choose among those available can become a matter of life and death. The belief that organ failure results from “HIV” rather than from HAART has led to further studies:

“Still, no one really knows what the effects of starting treatment earlier are. This question should be answered by a large international trial called START, organised by the US National Institutes of Health, to compare the health of people who start therapy at 350 with that of people who start at over 500.”

This is being done despite the fact cited in the NIH Treatment Guidelines, that HAART patients experience more organ failure than they do AIDS illnesses. One can reasonably expect that people with CD4 > 500 will “do better” than those with lower CD4 counts, since they are presumptively healthier to begin with and will resist iatrogenic poisoning better and longer. The “success” of the study will then be cited as support for testing everyone and treating every “HIV-positive” person, no matter how young or healthy, with antiretroviral drugs — and not for some short time, all the way to death.


Is there any way to avoid the dilemmas that stem from the theory-ladenness of facts, the possibility of interpreting any given piece of evidence in different, even opposing ways?

Of course there is. One doesn’t engage in argument over the ambiguous evidence, one looks for evidence that simply cannot be fitted into one or the other viewpoint. With respect to HIV/AIDS, such evidence is quite plentiful. For instance, the fact that “HIV” isn’t infectious, as shown by the epidemiology of positive “HIV”-tests in the United States; and the fact that mortality among “people living with AIDS” varies little with age, nothing like the exponential increase with age that is seen with actual illnesses and diseases; and the fact that “HIV” numbers and “AIDS” numbers don’t correlate chronologically, geographically, nor in their relative impacts by sex or by race.

* FOOTNOTE:  William B. Ashworth Jr., “Sharks-teeth, ax-heads, and belemnites: Problems of nomenclature in 17th-century paleontology”, National Meeting, History of Science Society, Toronto, 19 October 1980.

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, clinical trials, experts, HIV as stress, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV/AIDS numbers | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Protease inhibitors cause oxidative stress

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/04/25

Mainstream propaganda harps continually on the life-saving virtues of HAART, treatment that often combines a couple of reverse-transcriptase inhibitors and a protease inhibitor (PI). Indeed, it was the introduction of PIs that marked the beginning of David Ho’s “hit hard, hit early” approach that has become known as Highly Active AntiRetroviral Treatment.

Rethinkers and Skeptics who point to the  seriously debilitating “side” effects of HAART are brushed aside, even as the NIH’s Treatment Guidelines acknowledge that the majority of adverse events experienced by HAART-treated “AIDS” patients are owing to HAART and not to “AIDS”:
“In the era of combination antiretroviral therapy, . . . the risk of several non-AIDS-defining conditions, including cardiovascular diseases, liver-related events, renal disease, and certain non-AIDS malignancies . . .  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” (p. 13, January 2008 version).

The research literature, too, reveals what publicly disseminated propaganda refuses to acknowledge, for example, that PIs interfere drastically with fat metabolism and mitochondrial function, which includes absolutely-essential-to-life energy processes:

Public release date: 25-Mar-2009
Contact: Dr. Krishna C. Agrawal
Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine
. . . HIV-1 protease inhibitors (PIs), such as nelfinavir included in highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimen for the treatment of HIV-1 patients, induce deleterious effects on insulin secretion mediated through the oxidative stress pathway. . . . A significant decrease in ATP production was also observed . . . . This study appears in the April 2009 issue of Experimental Biology and Medicine. Although insulin resistance has been clinically observed in HIV-1 patients receiving HAART regimen, the molecular mechanisms of this metabolic abnormality have not been delineated.
. . . . Since the hypoglycemic effects of Nigella sativa oil have been investigated in the past, the investigators postulated that nelfinavir induced oxidative stress may be ameliorated by the administration of the active ingredient of this oil, thymoquinone. Furthermore, it was envisioned that since thymoquinone shares a structural homology with ubiquinone [commonly known as Coenzyme Q10] (mitochondrial component) it is likely that it may act as a mitochondrial antioxidant. . . . these findings clearly suggest a potential role for the use of black seed oil or thymoquione [sic] as a protective agent against HIV-1 protease inhibitor induced deleterious effects on pancreatic beta-cells”.

Reports like these are no doubt acceptable because they don’t stress the deleterious “side” effects of HAART but rather emphasize the “positive” approach of guarding against those “side” effects. Nevertheless, this is a back-door acknowledgement of how serious those “side” effects are.

Note too that when a traditional remedy is touted by mainstream researchers — here “Nigella sativa oil” or “black seed oil” — this is scientifically acceptable, whereas suggesting the benefits of traditional remedies is laughed out of court if proposed by the South African Minister of Health or by Dr. Matthias Rath (UCLA’s AIDS (“Beetroot”) Institute discovers how HIV kills cells, 2 January 2009; Mainstream pseudo-science good, alternative pseudo-science bad, 25 February 2009).

“Oxidative stress”, too, becomes scientifically acceptable when discussed in this context, but not when the Perth Group points to its explanatory power in relation to AIDS; nor does it bear mentioning that the oft-maligned Matthias Rath worked with Linus Pauling, who is arguably responsible for the wide recognition of the value of nutritional antioxidants like vitamin C.

Posted in Alternative AIDS treatments, antiretroviral drugs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“Newton” ghost-writes Kalichman’s book — Chapter 4 of Jekyll-Kalichman-Hyde-Newton

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/04/23

At the end of Chapter 3, we left “Joe Newton” shedding crocodile tears over the report that Rebecca Culshaw had lost her job. On a later occasion, he was perhaps hoping that her fate and similar experiences of others  might cause me to worry about my own position:
10 October 2008, Newton to Bauer:
“It is true what you say about Dr. Duesberg and his being treated badly.
How about you Dr. Bauer? How have your colleagues treated you? I mean with your interests in scientific explorations and all. Do they call you a pseudoscientist and other such names? I know you have been a Dean, do your colleagues respect you? I figure you must have a back like a duck to repel all that water.”

I enjoyed needling a little:
“Very decently. There aren’t any Wainbergs or Moores around here. I’ve given talks at the local medical school, to student groups, at departmental seminars, about my scholarly interests in Loch Ness, anomalies in general, HIV/AIDS, never a hint of trouble.
Maybe it’s partly owing to what I noticed when I moved from Michigan to Kentucky, and perhaps even more so in Virginia: there’s a tradition of courtesy that is not so generally found in the north and northeastern US.”

“Newton” was relieved: “I am glad to hear that. Really.”
[“Really” was another of “Newton’s” trademarks. For obviously good reason, he knew or suspected that people were unlikely to believe what he said.]


The more “Newton” lied, the more lying became habitual also to his creator, Kalichman. So when it came to writing a book, Kalichman-Newton attributed, to those he was writing about, things they had never said. Many parts of “Denying AIDS” are plagiarized from the  e-mails “Newton” exchanged with “denialists”; or rather, from the e-mails that “Newton” sent to “denialists”, for the book attributes to us things that we didn’t say but “he” did. For example, Kalichman-Newton espied a connection between views on cancer, AIDS, and the environment:
“Newton” to Crowe:
“I noticed you are founding memebr of the Green Party…. That is so  cool. I see the connection between your views on the cancer, AIDS and  the environment. You are a naturalist, yes?
It seems true for Dr. Duesberg as well…. environemental causes of  AIDS and Cancer.
So neat to make these connections.”

But Crowe made no such connection:
“I’m a founding member of the Green Party … in the province of  Alberta only. . . .  I’m not really a naturalist, although I’m very interested in the  natural world. . . .”

Nevertheless, the point appears in “Denying AIDS” (e.g., p. 30 ff.), where Duesberg’s views on aneuploidy as cause of cancer and HIV as not the cause of AIDS are somehow traced to an overarching belief in environmental causes (!!!, Kalichman-Newton would doubtless add).

“Newton” tried desperately to get someone to agree with his discovery that AIDS dissidence could be traced to German roots:
The book that just came off press [Engelbrecht & Köhnlein, “Virus Mania”] looks interesting…but I have  never heard of the author. A German journalist? I note some time back  that most dissidents are German…even D. Bauer was born in Austria!  I am wondering what the German connection is?? Is Dr. Duesberg that  influential?” (to Crowe)

and later, when Christian Fiala published a comment about inflated HIV/AIDS numbers from WHO:
“At 9:05 PM -0400 7/8/08, Joseph Newton wrote:
Mr. Crowe
Did you see this?
Why is the first letter that is supportive from Austria?? What is  this Gernan – Austrian thing and Dissidence?
Best to you

Crowe didn’t take the bait, yet “Newton’s” wacky “dissidence is German-associated” idea found its way into Kalichman’s “Denying AIDS” (pp. 54, 145;  see “The German Connection: Kalichman’s not-so-Komical Kaper #3”, 21 March 2009 ).

Again, my eyebrows shot toward the roof when I read (p. 74):
“Bauer had hoped that his book would land him an interview on the Today Show and change the course of AIDS research and treatments.”
Anyone who knows me even slightly would not recognize me as the fellow Kalichman writes about. If I were to dream about interviews on TV, it would be in terms of Bill Moyer, Gwen Ifill, maybe Tavis Smiley — a conversation, in other words, with intelligent people, not pseudo-substantive “entertainment” get-togethers interrupted every 5 minutes by commercial breaks (I was frankly shocked that President Obama was willing to sit through a couple of commercial breaks when talking with Jay Leno). At any rate, something like the Today Show would be a nightmare for me, not a hope or a dream; and if I were ever persuaded to do it, it would be a grit-teeth-and-endure-it experience. I don’t even recall whether I’ve ever watched the Today Show, Good Morning America, or others of that ilk; and if I did, it was because someone like Obama was on. So where did Kalichman get that from? Why, from “Newton’s” suggestions to Bauer:
14 October 2007, Newton to Bauer:
“Dr. Bauer, …
Why has there not been BIG media on your book? I would think there should be.
Has Peter Duesberg had contact with you? . . . . He could probably get you on the Today Show and Fox News!
If I knew of a way to help I surely would.”

and 3 February 2008:
“…I have been watching for you on the Today Show…but I guess they have not zeroed in on you yet!…”

15 October:
“I have been wondering what your goals are? I mean what would you like to see happen as a result of your book? I suspect you do not expect the orthodoxy to reverse course and refute the idea that HIV causes AIDS? It also does not sound like you expect your book to vindicate Peter Deusberg and salvage his image.
What would you like to see happen??”


After a while, having learned that Crowe had traced Newton to Kalichman, I grew tired of the cat-and-mouse and hinted as much by making my responses shorter and curter, and by giving Newton-Hyde-Kalichman the opportunity to realize his ineptness. He had (10 October 2008, 12:40:03 PM) shed his crocodile tears for Culshaw:
“I just learned that Rebecca Culshaw has lost her job. I saw a web posting saying something about how she has terminated.”

Naturally I asked (10:30:48 PM): “I hadn’t seen this, do you have a URL?”

OOPS! Of course he didn’t, as I well knew, for I have Google Alerts that would pick up anything like that. All Kalichman knew was that J P Moore had been harassing high-level administrators to fire Rebecca Culshaw, Andy Maniotis, and perhaps others as well (“Questioning HIV/AIDS: Morally Reprehensible or Scientifically Warranted?”, J. Amer. Physicians & Surgeons, 12 [#4, Winter 2007] 116- 120). So, “Newton” replied lamely (11:04:47 PM):
“I cannot find the URL now. But it was pretty clear that she did not get her tenure and was asked to depart.”

Likely story. Graduate student “Newton” finds something on the Web but can’t find it again a few hours later.


Chapter 5 will  describe how Kalichman actually became “Newton” in physical reality, not merely as a pseudonym.

Posted in experts, HIV skepticism, Legal aspects, prejudice | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: