HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Kalichman re-writes Bauer’s book — Kalichman’s disgracefully un-Komical Kaper #10

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/05/26

Ad hominem attacks are one well-recognized and standard recourse for people who cannot win an argument on the merits of their case. A second well-recognized and standard recourse is to try to demolish an opponent’s case by attacking something that the opponent never claimed, said, or wrote — it’s called attacking a straw man. Kalichman has done that in a number of places, for instance when he invented the criterion that scientific work of a certain age could be ignored, and that books citing such work were therefore suspect, and that only the last 5 years of research proved HIV to be the cause of AIDS (“Proving HIV/AIDS — Kalichman’s blunders, in a nutshell”, 11 March 2009).

To attack the case I make in my book, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, Kalichman does nothing but put up straw men. His apparently favorite criticism, since it’s reiterated several times, is that I compared or predicted AIDS numbers with or from HIV data of 10 years earlier, and for different populations to boot:

P. 72: “Bauer compares HIV testing data from military recruits in the 1980s, who represented young people from across the United States but were not even remotely representative of people at risk for HIV/AIDS, to US AIDS cases a decade later.”
P. 103: “This version of the single study fallacy is the entire basis for Henry Bauer’s analysis of HIV testing data to prove that HIV cannot cause AIDS. He uses a single study of HIV testing with US military recruits to predict AIDS cases ten years later.”

Here’s an offer open to anyone, very much including Kalichman, his editors at Copernicus/Springer, the eminent HIV/AIDS scientists who furnished complimentary blurbs for the dust-jacket of Kalichman’s book, and the groupies who posted glowing reviews on amazon.com:
I will send a free (no S&H charges!), personally signed, copy of any of my books to the first person who can find in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory (McFarland 2007) what Kalichman claims, in the above citations, to be there. The offer is of a brand-new copy of any of my books that’s still in print, or the best copy I can find at abebooks.com if the book is out of print. For a complete list of my books besides the one on HIV/AIDS, see the “Other Books” page on this blog.

Anyone who has actually read my book — or, for that matter, has even just leafed through Part I — knows that I collate published “HIV”-test data covering about two decades and featuring many population sub-groups. I used every data-set in the CDC’s annual HIV/AIDS Surveillance Reports and in addition a great number of articles reporting “HIV” tests. As I said in the book, I eventually stopped looking for additional data when the trends that had become obvious were just being confirmed and underscored as I located further reports.

The overall comparisons I make between “HIV” and “AIDS” are summarized in Chapter 9, “HIV and AIDS are not correlated”, with sections pointing out cases of “HIV”-negative “AIDS”, of long-term healthy “HIV-positive” individuals, and that “HIV” and “AIDS” have changed differently for males and females, and differently for blacks and whites, over the course of two decades.

As to comparing different populations, Figure 3, p. 28, shows the geographic distribution of “HIV-positive” among military recruits for 1985-86, separately for 1985-87, and separately again for 1993-97; and these are compared — and shown to be very similar — to geographic distributions for new mothers (1988-90; separately, 1994; separately, 1995); Job Corps members (1987-90, 1993-97); blood donors (1986-87); all CDC public testing sites (1995-98).

The most specific comparison between “HIV” cases and “AIDS” cases (Figure 27 and associated text, pp. 110-12) is not one that I constructed. I make a critique of the correlation claimed by CDC personnel between military applicants, 1985-87, with cumulative AIDS cases through 1987 in the general population (Curran et al., “Epidemiology of HIV infection and AIDS in the United States”, Science 239 [1988] 610–16). But even this is not with AIDS cases 10 years later than some set of “HIV” data. Still, that’s the closest thing I’ve found in my book that might perhaps be what Kalichman refers to: the comparison was not made by me, I criticized it, and it doesn’t compare 1980s “HIV” with “AIDS” ten years later.

If I’m wrong about this, feel free to claim your reward of an autographed book.

*********************

It would be awfully wearisome to list all of the things that Kalichman attacks in my book and which aren’t there. The egregious example just described in wearisome detail, and the misquotations described in an earlier post (Caveat lector! — Kalichman’s less-than-Komical Kaper #7, 3 May 2009), should suffice, I hope, to make readers of Kalichman’s book wary of believing anything he says about my work; every one of his statements needs to be checked against what’s actually in my book.

12 Responses to “Kalichman re-writes Bauer’s book — Kalichman’s disgracefully un-Komical Kaper #10”

  1. Martin said

    Hi Dr. Bauer, Do you really believe that Kalichman et al. really care what you think or the actual words you have written? In addtion to the fact that they are poor writers with sycophant reviews, they are unable to read with even a junior-high-school comprehensibility. Only intelligent people understand what you have written and that eliminates idiots like Kalichman.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Martin:

      Kalichman et al. certainly look at what I write, because people keep sending me extracts from their blogs.

      “Look at” does not mean “read” let alone “understand”, so you’re right about that.

      And, of course, I’m not addressing them, I’m writing for people who are interested in thinking about the evidence.

  2. You say “for 1985-86, separately for 1985-87, and separately again for 1993-97” but I suspect the second 85 might be intended to be 86.

    Nitpicker

    • Henry Bauer said

      Richard (nitpicker):

      Your suspicion is a priori warranted, but they happen to be data from independent sources, and it really is 1985-87.

  3. http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/research-suggests-new-cellular-targets-hiv-drug-development-21479.html

    Reports on HIV in macrophages.

    It’s from PLoS at
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005065

    Have you seen or discussed this already?

    • Henry Bauer said

      Richard Karpinski:

      I haven’t looked into the macrophage stuff. Here’s why for me this sort of thing is a red herring:

      One can argue endlessly about such reports that can be explained in alternative ways. All the “complications” about HIV recombination, constant mutation, etc., can be explained by noting that all the experiments are done on material that is not pure. Every “isolate” is a different mixture of various cellular components.

      Moreover, in science overall, first reports on anything should be taken seriously only by specialist researchers who will try to build on them, thereby testing them. Usually the first reports have to be modified or even withdrawn.

      My views are determined by the fact that HIV test-data show that what’s being detected isn’t infectious—details in Part I of The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory (McFarland 2007). Therefore everything based on the belief of an infectious retrovirus is barking up the wrong tree. It’s possible for sophisticated research to go off on wrong trails for a very long time, because anomalies and incongruities are taken as grounds for further study instead of recognizing them as falsifications of the basic notions — see about chasing phantoms in my book “Fatal Attractions — the Troubles with Science”

  4. I currently believe that HIV is not or is only very rarely sexually transmitted. Do you feel that that statement is well supported?

    I’d still say condoms for sex with new partners are appropriate for protection from other STDs.

    Is there a handy summary of such simple knowledge/facts that you agree with? I guess it might be a FAQ list summarized from your book.

    • MacDonald said

      Mr. Karpinski!

      Forgive me for interrupting, but I am shocked and can’t help myself. How could Prof. Bauer or anybody else have an opinion on the transmissibility of “HIV”, when it is not yet clear what “HIV” is? –– certainly not what the semantic content suggests.

      The correct question would be: “Can a condition likely to trigger a positive “HIV” test result be acquired sexually?”

      The answer is obviously YES.

      If you go through the endless list of factors and conditions that might contribute to a positive test result, you will find several that could be acquired sexually, such as pregnancy.

      So, being in the business of giving public advice, I’d say people should continue using condoms to protect themselves against pregnancy, and prophylactically seek the Pope’s forgiveness on the first Sunday of the month.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Richard Karpinski:

      Sabine K. and MacDonald have made the salient substantive points. As to:

      “Is there a handy summary of such simple knowledge/facts that you agree with? I guess it might be a FAQ list summarized from your book.”

      this is on my list of things to do — and has been for quite a while, because more urgent things intervene. Also, it needs to be not only from my book, because I’ve learned a lot more since writing it, from comments to this blog and further news reports and wider reading.

      The first essential point is that “HIV” is not transmissible AS A PATHOGENIC RETROVIRUS; but as MacDonald points out, some conditions that can bring on a positive “HIV” test are transmissible.
      Perhaps second: pure “HIV” virus particles have never been isolated from an AIDS patient or from an “HIV+” person. Everything published about “HIV” composition —proteins, RNA — is guesswork based on experiments with mixtures of all sorts of cellular debris, no two of which are the same: hence all the talk about incredibly fast mutation of “HIV”.
      Possibly third: “HIV” and “AIDS” numbers do not correlate as to geography, chronology, relative impact on men and women, or relative impact on blacks, whites, and Asians.
      Most troubling is the fact that antiretroviral drugs damage people and sometimes kill them. More people on them die of organ failure than of so-called “AIDS” diseases.

  5. Richard,

    PMFJI: All the available data from the beginning of the epidemics of the AIDS-hysteria in the early eighties until today prove that “HIV” is not transmissible or contagious — neither sexually nor otherwise. The data further prove that “HIV” and AIDS are two totally different entities that are not correlated in any way — like for example apples and shoes. In most cases when you’re eating an apple you’re wearing shoes. That does not mean that wearing shoes is the cause of eating apples.

    The color of your hair is not transmissible, but hereditary. As is the arrangement of a variety of unspecific proteins in your blood — all of them not causing any harm, just like the color of your hair or the color of your skin.

    And yes, you’re right, condoms are appropriate. They protect you from STDs — not from other STDs, but from STDs.

    To avoid any of the many diseases that are collected under the term “AIDS”, you should keep yourself away from all kinds of drugs, especially from the ones propagated by the Pharmaceutical Authorities like antibiotics or HAART.

    You should eat enough, you should eat healthy food and drink clean water, live a stressless life, get enough sunshine, sleep enough, love enough.

    You should avoid killing your gut flora with antibiotics, by douching, or by using benzene-containing products like certain condoms, lubricants, dietary products from the supermarket fridges (the latter applying to the high risk group of women desiring to lose weight, though more and more men become infected these days):

    http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/sblubejob.htm

    And you should stop submitting yourself to the dictatorship of the Pharmaceutical Authorities.

    It’s as easy as that.

  6. I was interested in the Wilson interview and listened all the way through. I was surprised how reasonable Seth sounded when you don’t check the truth or import of what he says:

    http://richardwilsonauthor.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/exclusive-interview-with-prof-seth-kalichman-author-of-denying-aids

    MarkH reviewed the book you have so carefully ridiculed at:

    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/denying_aids_-_a_book_by_seth.php

    It activated my nitpicking persona so I left two sarcastic responses relating to blatant typos there. One was “son” where “sun” was intended and the other contained a string of many words duplicated in what purported to be a quotation from the book. These things just leap out to my eye, which slows my reading but calms my mind a bit as I seek to make sense of science writings.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Richard Karpinski:

      I learned long ago that one cannot judge from externals whether someone is talking sense or nonsense, you have to look at what’s being said. Much of my learning stems from a life in academe, where much high-falutin rubbish can be heard in formal as well as informal settings. I’ve also attended perhaps more than my share of talks by enthusiasts for a variety of unorthodox opinions about health, UFOs, psychic phenomena, etc., and have often been struck by the fact that the settings, use of audio and video and PowerPoint, etc., etc., are indistinguishable from those at mainstream professional gatherings.

      Anyone who describes the Kalichman book as excellent or thoroughly researched loses my respect; either they haven’t read the book, or they haven’t thought about what they read, or they know nothing about relevant matters.

      I empathize with your “nitpicking persona”, those sorts of things also leap to my eye and irritate me. If people want others to read what they say, why can’t they take a bit of care about what they say and how they say it? I suffer endless embarrassment whenever typos and other mistakes persist despite my proof-reading.

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