HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

“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.

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

  1. Martin said

    Hi, Dr. Bauer:
    The so-called “AIDS” statistics presented by the CDC are really a shell game. Increasing the incidence of “AIDS” deaths by including the deaths of “HIV positive” people from car accidents is a perfect example of their desperation to increase the scare numbers (I read that in Rebecca Culshaw’s book). The general public is so ignorant and prejudiced that they accept this kind of flim-flam. Had the CDC limited the numbers of “AIDS” deaths to the original classics: Kaposi, Candidiasis, and Pneumocysists Carinii Pneumonia, as opposed to the suspicious ‘death from “HIV disease”‘ (whatever that is — doesn’t HIV have to present?), etc., they would have to report that AIDS was nothing but a syndrome limited to select risk groups.

    • Henry Bauer said

      I’m always inclined to doubt “conspiracy” theories, suggestions that bad things happen through deliberate intent, but the CDC has long given evidence that its institutional self-interest is their primary concern; the Wall Street Journal in 1996 discovered and reported that early in the “AIDS” “epidemic” they had even hired a PR firm to spread the propaganda that “everyone is at risk” (Bennett, A., and A. Sharpe. 1996. AIDS fight is skewed by federal campaign exaggerating risks. Wall Street Journal 1 May, pp. A1, 6).
      Still, incompetence adds a lot to the confusion conveyed by their “statistics”; for example, in my book (p. 110 ff.) I demonstrate that their claim in 1988 of correlation between “HIV” and “AIDS” is simply wrong, based on their own numbers. Starting in the late 1990s, the HIV/AIDS “Surveillance” Reports increasingly have published ESTIMATES instead of actual reports, even as actual data demonstrate that the computer models they use are faulty (p. 223). And much more stuff like that— see under Centers for Disease Control in the index of my book. All that is probably responsible for my reaction to their pronouncements about the “swine flu” business: I find myself unable to believe or trust them, a very sad state of affairs.

  2. Michael said


    HIV causation theory is balanced upon the precarious balance of believing that HIV causes aids by somehow killing or subdueing or depressing CD4 T-cells.

    The T in T-cells stands for THYMUS gland.

    Please look at this:

    This study, done on rats to create “chronic stress” caused hypoatrophy of the thymus in 21 days. The following is the brief on pubmed:

    The aim of this study was to investigate whether chronic stress, induced by repeated daily swimming during 21 days, alters the morphofunctional parameters in the thymus of adult rats. Our results showed that chronic stress reduced thymus mass, total number of thymocytes, volume of the thymus compartments and numerical density of thymocytes within thymus inner cortex and medulla. However, the percentage of apoptotic cells and the level of corticosterone were significantly increased. The percentages of CD4-CD8-TCRalphabeta(low/high) and CD4-CD8+TCRalphabeta(-)thymocytes were significantly increased, while the percentage of the least mature CD4+CD8-SP TCRalphabeta(-) thymocytes was significantly decreased. These results show that recurred swimming procedure induces thymus hypotrophy and elevated percentage of DN TCRalphabeta(+) cells.

    And how chronically stressful is the diagnosis itself? How chronically stressful is drug addiction or going for weeks at a time strung out on speed like crystal meth? How stressful is malnourishment? How stressful are many of the hiv drugs on some peoples bodies? How stressful is it to be disowned by ones parents for being gay? How stressful is it to believe one is hiv positive and destined to come down with AIDS? How stressful is it to have one’s partner or have several dear friends die?

    There are many causes and contributors to chronic stress. And it is clear that chronic stress causes immune suppression via the thymus gland/lymphocyte connection. And to me, at least, the results of the chronic stress appear quite clear. They have clearly played the most significant role in absolutely every death that has been attributed to hiv, yet, I fear, too few are making this simple connection, even though it appears to be the weakest link in the hiv=aids theory.

    Is this thymus/stress connection the weakest link to hiv theory? Is this the simplest and most direct explanation for deaths said to be due to hiv?

    And why were these simply thymus/lymphocyte studies done in Yugoslavia and not fully researched here in the United States?

    • sadunkal said

      [Sorry, apparently I messed up the earlier comment]

      “… The percentages of CD4-CD8-TCRalphabeta(low/high) and CD4-CD8+TCRalphabeta(-)thymocytes were significantly increased, while the percentage of the least mature CD4+CD8-SP TCRalphabeta(-) thymocytes was significantly decreased. …”

      What do these percentages exactly mean with regard to CD4 ratio? I’m not familiar with the way it is formulated in the abstract. Is it exactly the same situation as claimed it is in the case of “AIDS” patients?

      • Henry Bauer said

        Forget the intricate technicalities. Changes in CD4 counts and CD4/CD8 ratios are ascribed to “HIV” in “HIV-positive” people. Evidently such changes can be induced by stress. Group comparisons of “HIV-positive” from the totality of tests in the USA already showed “HIV-positive” to be enormously non-specific. The rabbit data are just another nail in the coffin of HIV/AIDS theory.

  3. Michael said

    Sadun, you asked if this is identical to what is seen in HIV-positives.

    It seems it matches what is seen in HIV-positives to a proverbial Tee (no pun intended, though it may be an appropriate pun as in T-cell, as in Thymus gland).

    Anthony Fauci himself had said, in a book he had written on HIV, that initially, at least when patients have first been diagnosed as HIV-positive, CD4 counts mysteriously increased.

    This corresponds well to what the study above found. An increase in free mature T-cells was noted to be created by chronic stress.

    So here, with this initial increase in T-cells upon inducing chronic stress, yes, we do seem to have exactly what Anthony Fauci himself claims is attributed to HIV infection.

    And then, the study further immediately notes that with atrophying of the thymus gland, the ‘immature’, the not-yet-ready-to-be-released T-cell numbers diminish.

    Therefore, it follows that any diminishing of the immature T-cells will mean that many fewer T-cells would therefore be available to fight any future or recurring infections.

    So again, we have a direct match to what is attributed to be caused by HIV, of a subsequent decreasing of available T-cells.

    And this study of the effects of intense stress on the thymus was essentially very brief, only 21 days.

    I would think that most rats (or any sentient creatures) who are dropped into water and forced to swim or drown are also experiencing the same initial fight-for-life adrenal pump that would be experienced by those who are told they are HIV-positive.

    BUT, with a significant difference. The rats were brought out of the water, out of the impending cause of imminent death, before they drowned and were able to escape continuous belief in impending death, though surely they must have been traumatized afterwards.

    Someone diagnosed with HIV has no such escape from the imminent apparent cause of death, as they are told that the cause of death is in their own blood and is coursing 24/7 throughout their body.

    In facing a wild bear, the stressful panic and immediate bodily reactions last until they escape or until the bear has disappeared.

    For those diagnosed with HIV, they have no escape and the bear never disappears. The bear that is threatening to devour them is continuously believed to be within them.

    And this is probably one of the most, if not the only beneficial aspect of HIV drugs. At least for those who believe in them, the bear within is kept at bay. This would certainly reduce anxiety and chronic stress of believing one is near to unwanted death.

    But, of course, we would not know this for sure, because not a single HIV drug since the 4-month-long AZT-trial in 1987 has ever been tested against placebo .

    • sadunkal said

      Okay, thanks. Interesting. And I agree with the analogies. I made similar points here myself:

      I wasn’t aware of the initial increase by the way. But now I see that, according to the Wiki, this is 100% compatible with the Fight-or-flight response:

      “…Prolonged stress responses may result in chronic suppression of the immune system, leaving the body open to infections, however there is a short boost of the immune system shortly after the fight or flight response has been activated. This is due to an ancient need to fight the infections in a wound that one may have received during interaction with a predator…”

      • Michael said


        I looked at the post on your blogsite, and it seems you were right on track.

        Conclusion: The mechanism by which T-cells are suppressed, that is falsely claimed to be due to HIV, is clear. Chronic fight-or-flight stress, often exacerbated by the emotional response to the HIV/AIDS diagnosis itself, causes overexertion and atrophying of the thymus gland, leaving an insufficient number of mature or capable T-cells available to dispose of harmful agents such as viral, bacterial, or fungal infections.

        Again, I posit that we herein also satisfied Occam’s Razor, as we have the simplest explanation of CD4 T-cell loss or suppression.

        The weakest link of HIV/AIDS theory, that HIV infection causes CD4 loss or suppression via “unknown mechanisms” is herein fully exposed as false until and unless future data support more complex theories than existing data do.

        Science tends to prefer the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available.

        I believe the dissidents use this simple evidence far too insufficiently in countering HIV-theory orthodox positions, and while attempting to kick 1000 other legs out from under the table of HIV-causation theories and beliefs, we are being diverted in far too many directions to be understood by the masses. I also believe we dissidents have far too long ignored the most simple and well proven explanation for AIDS: The well-verified effect of Chronic Stress on the thymus gland.

        I hereby encourage dissidents to unite on this, and put the Chronic Stress Syndrome evidence of immune suppression via the thymus gland as our best foot forward in countering HIV beliefs.

        Without a more united effort under the most significant banner of disproof of current prevailing HIV=AIDS theory, dissident arguments are far too numerous and diverse to be easily understood by the general public, whose support and understanding of the fundamental core of dissident arguments is required for the paradigm to be overturned.

        This very simple explanation of stress upon the thymus gland is simple, concise, and universally able to be easily understood by scientists, doctors, and the masses alike, and therefore the most likely to become universally accepted as the cause of the syndrome known as AIDS.

        [contd. at 4.24 pm]
        Though science may or may not ever be able to verify it, as there are no foreseeable instruments to differentiate between or measure human emotions, or even to verify that human emotions exist, I would venture to take the Chronic Stress/Thymus connection to a suppressed immune system even several steps further.

        I would venture that any intense and prolonged human emotion that “feels bad” is indeed bad, as it suppresses the optimal performance of the physical body’s immune system and natural ability to thrive.

        This would include intense shame, guilt, hopeless helpless apathy, loneliness, fear, and even anger. I tend to believe all of them have a negative influence on optimum bodily function, simply because all of them do indeed ‘feel’ so completely discomforting. Overindulging in any of them leaves one feeling very physically and emotionally drained.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Your argument is well supported, but I don’t think restricting dissident claims to this one mechanism is the right way to go. I agree that complexity makes it more difficult to persuade the geenral public, but putting all eggs into one basket is too much of a gamble, particularly as one can identify cases where strong evidence exists for other mechanisms, e.g. fast-lane lifestyle at the very beginning of the “AIDS” blundering, with Tony Lance’s intestinal dysbiosis hypothesis offering a very plausible and specific mechanism for what fast-lane over-indulging can effect.

      • Michael said


        I agree with you that there should be no restriction of discussion of dissident evidences, and I never suggested any such restriction. I only present this as what I think the first and primary discussion should be when dissidents are laying out their cards and arguments for the uninformed layman or when countering or encountering the so called “HIV experts”.

        While I fully agree that Tony Lance’s work, Duesbergs theory of drugs, the Perth’s theory of oxidation, and your own priceless exposition of flawed and contradicting HIV/AIDS data, as well as the work of dozens of others, do clearly expose and explain most all of the HIV causes AIDS paradigm, the fundamental root of the paradigm, the very core of it, has, since the beginning, rested on promotion of the belief that HIV somehow and as yet unknown causes AIDS via CD4 cell loss or suppression.

        That unverified hypothesis, is, short and sweet, the entirety and the very heart and core of HIV theory. That HIV is to blame for immune suppression via CD4 loss or suppression, resulting in AIDS.

        I believe the Stress/Thymus evidence stops this HIV core theory dead in its tracks.

        I also suggest that if Duesberg had presented this theory, and its well verified evidence in 1987, instead of his drug explanation, his presentation would have ended the debate and we would no longer be living in a world that mostly believes HIV is the cause of AIDS.

        As my evidence for the power of the Stress/Thymus explanation to counter HIV orthodoxy, please read the blog comments left on hard core HIV theory promoter Richard Wilson’s blog in this thread, and his reaction, and you see again how quickly any debate that HIV could be the cause of aids is squashed as the fundamental theory of HIV causation is quickly and easily disemboweled and there is nothing for him to refute, resulting in the die-hard HIV theory promoter, Richard Wilson being left speechless, and unable to debate or negate a word of it:

        I do not think this exposition of the impossibility of HIV theory would have been possible by presenting to him the internal dysbiosis presentations, nor drug abuse presentations, oxidation theories, nor arguing over hiv test failures or any other hiv/aids data. The Stress/thymus presentation seems to quickly get to the heart of the matter, and makes the presence of HIV meaningless, and exposes HIV’s ability to cause disease to be quickly verified as an unsupported, unproven, and most likely wrong explanation right from the start, as it offers a verified and verifiable and simple alternative.

        Again, I fear the clear and simple stress/thymus explanation and its easily found evidences are used far too little in initial dissident presentations, and I believe stress/ via the thymus = immune suppression should be the very first shot fired by dissidents in any discussions of HIV as being the cause of AIDS, as the answer to all of it becomes clear:

        You were diagnosed as HIV? Forget about it. HIV positivity doesn’t mean anything at all. And whatever you do, don’t stress about it or get depressed over it, because the stress itself can devastate your health and make you sick.

      • Henry Bauer said

        I don’t question the importance of stress and nocebo. There are two dilemmas for which I’ve found no satisfactory resolution:
        1. What it takes to convince someone that HIV/AIDS theory is wrong surely varies from individual to individual; so a collage of plausible explanations may be strategically desirable.
        2. “HIV-positive” can result from many things, some of which are actually health-threatening — TB, say. So I think anyone who tests “positive” should try to discover whether an actual threat to health underlies the situation.

  4. MacDonald said

    Incompetence, yes, but why not take a page out of Kalichman’s book and coin the term “malicious incompetence” ?

    There is the saying that when Man invented the atom bomb, he immediately invented a reason to use it. And there’s the one about the cure waiting for the disease.

    Once you have made it policy to have stockpiles of Tamiflu or various vaccines to counter bio-terror threats etc., people are consciously or unconsciously looking for an “application”. And of course there’s the constant pressure from an influential pharma lobby.

    It’s perhaps a bit simplified to say that Swine Flu was invented to sell Tamiflu, or to build a border fence, or to destroy the Chinese/Asian export markets (SARS, bird flu), but there are riverbeds and confluences of established interests that are just waiting for the slightest hint of rain — as well as being “too big to fail”.

    They were awfully quick to establish the swine-bird-human composition of this virus — which just happens to be the exact generic nightmare combination of scary flus that have been fashionable the past decade or so. They were even quicker in determining that this thing originated in Mexico on the basis of the cases reported there, and the effectiveness of Tamiflu in combating it was established at no less than Hollywood Sci-fi speed.

    Even more incredibly, within 48 hours we already had the CDC teaching us about the relative severity of the different strains!! which magically correlates with geographical

    • Henry Bauer said

      It’s a question of conscious intent.

      In my view, incompetence has often been the savior against maliciousness: the bad guys are stupid at the right time in the right way to foil their evil intentions.

      The confluence of history, human nature, human ignorance, established practices, inertia, all those sorts of things result NATURALLY, WITHOUT CONSCIOUS DELIBERATION, in ends that LOOK LIKE THEY WERE PLANNED. Perhaps there’s an analogy with biological evolution by non-conscious natural selection, which results in organs and functions that LOOK LIKE THEY WERE PLANNED BY A CREATOR.

      The atom bomb was planned because there was a war already.
      Another saying is, “To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. To the CDC, everything looks like an infectious agent, not because they’re in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry (which they are), but because that’s the Zeitgeist and the CDC culture. That they’re in cahoots with the drug companies is also part of the Zeitgeist.
      All the CDC knows to do is by analogy with what they’ve done in the past. That’s an illustration of the fact that medical and scientific paradigms are obsolescent as soon as they are adopted — every paradigm is a dogma that serves to restrict and restrain further progress.

      If what’s wrong in the world were owing just to maliciousness, then the solutions would be much more feasible and staightforward.

  5. MacDonald said

    For the record, I did not mean the malice was deliberate in the sense I think the word is being used here. But since we are in the realm of psychology anyway, intents do not have to be conscious.

    There is a level of “blundering” where it becomes difficult to suspend disbelief. The CDC and others have a self-serving script prepared, and everything is made to fit it with obvious disregard for science, and the intelligence of average citizens. This is a form of “Blundering” which is intentionally allowed to perpetuate itself. However, we are loathe to ascribe any kind of intent, because we have been taught to fear the Conspiracy Theorist charge (see my next post for pertinent examples of how that club is wielded).

    Wars started because of Iraqi phantom WMDs are not merely the result of the blundering of well-meaning individuals; torture and suspension of habeas corpus are not merely the result of some do-gooders’ misdirected efforts to protect us all; KZ camps were not merely some ideologues’ silly attempt to create a worldwide Utopia; CDC’s blundering propaganda campaigns are not merely the result of the honest efforts of altruistic scientists and public servants.

    We should not be afraid of calling “ignorance” intentional and a sin.

    To the related point, of course bombs are generally developed for use in war. What requires further invention is the particular occasion for its use. Some people in authority also believed the atom bomb was the only solution to the Vietnam War, when we all know that Coca Cola and MTV will do the trick nicely. The, on all levels crushingly superior, Israeli Army thought it was absolutely necessary for its own safety to use outlawed white phosphorus near schools and hospitals occupied by civilians during the latest war in Gaza. Repeated waterboarding quickly became the absolutely only means to save Western Civilization in the minds of a lot of people. This is not just a matter of the hammer seeing nails everywhere. It’s malicious, even if we might have convinced ourselves and others that we are doing Great Good.

  6. Michael said


    I am not sure, but you seem to possibly be misinterpreting that I am suggesting dissidents discuss nothing but the chronic stress/thymus effects. If so, that is not the case at all. Certainly every nook and cranny of the issue should be discussed.

    I agree that the process, and it is generally a process, that one takes in overcoming any programmed belief, such as the belief in a deadly HIV, usually requires many if not all of the significant questions anyone might have to be satisfactorily examined or answered. And we dissidents do have our bases covered in nearly all of this. And I think you are right that it does take a collage of explanations to overcome any pre-programmed belief. But where does one start in presenting such a collage to a newcomer? What cuts to the very heart of the issue?

    The stress/thymus effect of immune suppression is just as valid and important for those who are dealing with health-threatening issues such as TB, or often any of the other health-threatening diseases or illnesses. Probably even more so with TB particularly in Africa where the common belief is often that every case of TB is a case of AIDS caused by HIV suppressing the immune system, as the panicky patient runs to then get an HIV test and take HIV drugs as well as treatment for TB.

    While an HIV test may indicate that something possibly serious caused an HIV test to show positive, I recommend that one avoids another stressful panic of believing that their diagnosis of HIV now means they probably have some other life-threatening condition that caused the positive HIV test results, and possibly TB. Because it clearly doesn’t. Nor would I recommend that one goes off in search for a diagnosis to find something to explain the HIV-positive diagnosis. Nor would I recommend promoting that belief. All that I think such would do would be to create another reason for an individual to enter chronic stress, and open the door for another possibly mistaken misdiagnosis.

    If one is presenting actual worsening illnesses, that would be another thing altogether. Of course one should probably, if possible find out what is behind it. But not so simply for testing HIV positive when one is perfectly healthy. Even if one has been exposed to or even contracted TB, that has no bearing on whether or not they will get fully ill from it, or quickly recover without need of external assistance or drugs for TB. Most healthy and nonstressed people who are exposed to TB never come down with symptoms from it at all.

    The vast, vast majority of those diagnosed as HIV are perfectly healthy until overcome by stress factors; e.g., Christine Maggiore, and her daughter whose autopsy report also clearly stated an atrophied thymus, and David Pasquarelli and other dissidents who passed, and those in 3rd-world countries such as Africa who are chronically stressed and depressed by poverty, etc., and upon examination, it is also explanatory for most, certainly not all, other actually ill developed-world HIV-positives who present sustained immune suppression with presenting illnesses as well. Does it fully explain every illness? Of course not. But it certainly explains the worsening intensity and inability to heal from such illnesses that intense stressing about those illnesses can create.

    And stress can exacerbate such illnesses just as well in TB cases in Africa, just as easily as it can with someone who is HIV negative and comes down with the common flu that turns into pneumonia.

    • Michael said

      Henry, I do agree that all aspects of the collage that the dissidents have presented should each and every one be shouted from the mountaintops. So please do not take my passion for screaming out about the Chronic Stress/Thymus thing as if I am dismissing of all that everyone else has uncovered and exposed. Every one of our voices and points of view are certainly crucial to overturning the paradigm of HIV/AIDS misbeliefs.

      And if Seth Kalichman’s latest post is evidence of anything, it is evidence that our voices ARE being heard and understood. In his latest post, he reports that “45% of Gay men believe ‘HIV does not cause AIDS’ and 51% believe that ‘HIV drugs can harm you more than help you’.”

      This is good news. Good news indeed! And it took all of our voices together to come this far:

      • Henry Bauer said

        Good news indeed!
        Let’s just hope these are statistics from Kalichman that one can believe in…

    • Henry Bauer said

      You may well be right, and you surely have a larger database than I. I do know of a few gay men who have been HIV-positive and perfectly healthy for a long time. Perhaps my view that a health check might be a good idea reflects the personality of a native pessimist who always expects the worst.
      I certainly agree that stress does bad things whether or not one has any physical health threat. I’ve long pointed out, in the mirror-image situation, that placebo is a force whether or not accompanied by physical treatment: a doctor’s “bedside manner” can make an enormous difference as to the effectiveness of any manifest treatment.

  7. Matt said

    “What it takes to convince someone that HIV/AIDS theory is wrong surely varies from individual to individual; so a collage of plausible explanations may be strategically desirable.”
    — I fully agree with you, Henry. To those of my friends that are anti-drug, I pitch the “Duesberg hypothesis” (even though I believe it to be at least partially wrong). A bulk of the support for AIDS dissidents has come from anti-drug people and organizations. I remember on AME a while ago there was a thread about how to turn liberals into AIDS dissidents by saying that AIDS is a conservative conspiracy, and vice-versa. As Kalichman rightly states, we spread our ideas across the ideological spectrum (or should). From the beginning I was skeptical of HIV/AIDS but ultimately it was my research into “alternative medicine” which sparked my interest in AIDS. I came into it with an open mind and read some great dissident works on virusmyth (back then it was still regularly updated) which convinced me. The trouble is that most from “mainstream medicine” are very closed minded (AIDS is just the tip of the iceberg). They do not want to read anything which contradicts their beliefs and collectively dismiss it as quackery or psuedoscience.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s