HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Archive for June, 2009

Porn industry proves that “HIV” is not sexually transmitted

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/06/13

“‘I don’t think there’s a problem right now,’ said actor, producer and director Jules Jordan. ‘It’s like people who do stunts in Hollywood. There’s a risk in anything you do.’ Jordan said he does not use condoms in filming because ‘it takes away the whole fantasy.’ . . .
Adult film stars and producers . . .  said they continue to believe the porn industry’s testing guidelines are enough to keep performers safe despite this week’s news that an adult film actress had tested positive for HIV” (Kimi Yoshino & Rong-Gong Lin II, “Porn stars at L.A. convention defend HIV tests”, Los Angeles Times, 13 June)

“The United States adult film industry produces 4,000–11,000 films and earns an estimated $9– $13 billion in gross revenues annually [1]. An estimated 200 production companies employ 1,200–1,500 performers [2]. Performers typically earn $400–$1,000 per shoot and are not compensated based on distribution or sales” (Grudzen & Kerndt, “The Adult Film Industry: Time to Regulate?” PLoS Medicine 4 #6 [2007] e126  0993-6).

The very question of what caused that film actress to test positive seems entirely open:
“Officials at the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation . . . have issued conflicting statements about when the woman’s first positive test was known, citing both June 4 and June 6. . . . What is clear is that the woman worked June 5 despite having last tested negative for HIV on April 29 . . . . she has since gotten multiple positive test results. The woman had two recent sex partners, her boyfriend and a male performer she worked with June 5. The men have tested HIV negative so far. . . . Los Angeles County officials . . . . said it would be the 22nd HIV infection in an adult industry performer since 2004. Five were detected in the outbreak five years ago that shut down production for a month. In all, health officials said 16 of the 22 are men, including 10 who were identified as having sex with other men, and six, including the most recent, are women. Given the size of the industry ‘it is pretty remarkable and a testament to the testing procedures in place’ that so few people have tested positive for HIV, said Steven Hirsch, co-founder of Vivid Entertainment, one of the largest producers of heterosexual adult films. . . . Vivid [is] a condom-optional company . . . .
But public health officials caution that the testing protocol does not adequately protect against transmission of diseases. The male porn star at the center of the 2004 outbreak, for example, had tested negative for HIV just days before working and spreading the virus to three female performers.”

Among the estimated 200 production companies, “Jessica Drake, an actress for Wicked Entertainment, . . . . works for the industry’s only heterosexual condom-mandatory production company.”

So: In 2009 a female porn actress tests positive after sex with two men who are both “HIV”-negative. In 2004, an “HIV”-negative male porn star had supposedly infected 3 females.
Over a period of 5 years, during which 20,000-55,000 films were made by 1200-1500 performers, with condoms “optional” or explicitly not used in 199 out of 200 production companies, a total of 22 positive “HIV” tests were recorded. It seems that transmitting “HIV-positive” status is a very rare occurrence when heterosexual intercourse (not only vaginal, moreover) is unprotected, at least in the adult film industry: “the vast majority of heterosexual porn movies are shot ‘bareback,’ an industry term for unprotected sex” .

In the 2004 incident, a male porn star was supposed to have infected 3 female actors, whose first- and second-generation sexual partners were tested subsequently with none found to be “HIV-positive” (Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 54 #37 [2005] 923-4).

“HIV” testing is done for the porn industry by PCR, because it can supposedly detect “infection” a couple of weeks earlier than antibody tests can; and because it is more sensitive, and therefore also used for screening blood. At the same time, it is less specific and approved only for screening and not for diagnosis (MMWR above).

Testing “HIV-positive” can come after flu vaccination, anti-tetanus shot, pregnancy, tuberculosis, surgery, and because of dozens of other “cross-reactions”.


Pretend you are an alien visiting this planet. Would you ascribe to sexual transmission, sometimes from “HIV”-negative partners, those 4.4 cases per year of “HIV-positive” in the porn industry, or would you ascribe them to cross-reactions and coincidences?

Again as an alien, how would you rate the rationality of the beings who interpret these numbers as sexual transmission during the speculated period of a few weeks during which a person may be infected but not “HIV-positive”? From the “HIV”-negative individuals who had evidently caught that “infection” somewhere other than in the work-place, even though the overwhelming amount of intercourse by porn-performers occurs in that work-place?


Camp followers of the HIV/AIDS dogma, of course, speak in absolutist terms and with scant regard for probabilities or evidence. Thus “a spokesman for the state [CA] Division of Occupational Safety and Health” complained that the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation “has never been cooperative with us and our investigations; . . . .’You’d think they’d want to be a full partner in trying to prevent the spread of this disease,’ said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, health officer for Los Angeles County. . . . ‘This industry screams for regulation,’ said Michael Weinstein, president of the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation. ‘Cal-OSHA needs to require that condoms be used in any film. Yesterday.’”

They are worried so frantic because “With some of the nation’s largest pornography producers based in the Valley, any disease has the potential to spread quickly”.

Yet the clear fact of the matter is that “HIV” has not spread, let alone quickly, in this very “high-risk” group. The surveillance is unmatched anywhere else. Performers have to be tested every 30 days by the same sensitive (and thereby not-very-specific) test as is used for blood donations. A total of 22 positive tests have been reported in 5 years among 1200-1500 people tested 12 times a year, thus about 72,000-90,000 tests. Since the number of films made was between 20,000 and 55,000, one may infer reasonably that the number of acts of intercourse will have been of that same order of magnitude, so also comparable to the number of tests. So in a high-risk group that predominantly practices unsafe sex, and where the “potential to spread rapidly” is great, the observed rate of testing “HIV-positive” is maybe something like 5 in 10,000, certainly well under 1 per 1000.

No wonder that the people most directly involved are quite unworried: the porn stars supposedly at risk of contracting a deadly incurable disease; the producers (some of them retired stars themselves) who hire them and would certainly be at considerable financial risk if an infected performer sued them for being obliged to perform without protection; and the officials of the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation, whose co-founder is also a former star with 2000 films to her credit. All of them seem to understand the significance of actual evidence and experience, unlike the AIDS “activists” and official healthcare personnel whose knowledge comes not from experience but from indoctrination into HIV/AIDS dogma.

Posted in experts, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV transmission, HIV/AIDS numbers, Legal aspects, sexual transmission, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 23 Comments »

Doing science means exploring

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/06/10

End of last month I was at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Society for Scientific Exploration, and enjoyed it thoroughly, as I always do. Partly it’s the intellectual comradeship with so many interesting people from very varied backgrounds; partly it’s hearing about intriguing matters that I knew nothing about before.

For me, two invited speakers, not yet members of the Society, were highlights at this meeting. Colin Campbell, author of The China Study (531 customer reviews on with an average rating of 4+/5 stars!), presented stunning evidence of the health benefits of eating less than the amounts of animal fats that are typical in current American diets. It was also interesting to learn that he had successfully received grants throughout his career for cancer-related nutritional studies, when his actual interests and studies and findings had far wider significance for diets and nutrition in general; but “nutrition” is not a highly regarded field by those who distribute research funds. No sooner does one hear that then it becomes obvious enough. Where in the hierarchy within universities, for example, are Departments of Nutrition? So research funds are hard to get if you just want to study what people should eat and why.

A second high point was Jay Gunkelman on electrical measurements of brain activity, Quantitative EEG . Direct (d.c.) voltage levels modify the alternating (a.c.) voltages measured by EEG machines, and combinations of the two measurements permit sensitive and accurate control of anesthesia as well as offering data for intriguing insights into consciousness. For example, there has been some success in diagnosing among patients in a coma which ones might be candidates for successful reviving.

There were other interesting talks too, of course; and some not so interesting ones as well as some bad ones. I always think of it as analogous to the experience of ballet fans or opera buffs or book lovers or playgoers: You take in a lot of ordinary stuff, and put up with a certain amount of bad stuff, because occasionally you have so marvelously irreplaceable an experience.

The Society for Scientific Exploration was founded initially by distinguished astronomers, engineers, physicists and others to provide a disciplined forum for topics that the scientific mainstream ignored totally: UFOs, psychic phenomena, cryptozoology (Bigfoot, Loch Ness monsters) were the Big Three, but of course there are many others as well. The determination that the discussions be rigorously scientific led to stringent requirements for membership: PhD or equivalent, tenured university position or equivalent, respectable record of peer-reviewed publications in a mainstream field. I liked to joke that these requirements were supposed to keep out the kooks, when I knew quite a few kooks with all these qualifications. But in practice the respect for and insistence on evidence and logic has been very high, particularly in the Society’s Journal. At conferences, as in mainstream conferences, more speculative pieces are welcome. Moreover, membership is actually open to anyone who is interested, the original restrictive criteria having been limited essentially to voting rights, and there are now about 3 times as many Associate and Student members as there are voting ones.

As the years have passed, the Society has been discovered by scientists and others working in mainstream occupations who happened in some way to be so “out-of-the-box” that they could not get useful critiques from the usual mainstream sources. So we heard from Thomas Gold, the distinguished astrophysicist, about his at-last-accepted-after-much-rejection idea that the sense of hearing depends on an active and not a passive process; and about his not-yet-accepted ideas about the non-biological origin of the Earth’s oil and suggesting that life on Earth started deep down, not in the mainstream-accepted warm soupy pools at the surface. Other fascinating topics at conferences and in the Journal include ball lightning, correlations of birth dates with subsequent professional success, biological rhythms, and many more. There have also been discussions of the history and sociology and philosophy of science, especially the role of unorthodox ventures in the progress of science. One of the most appreciated features of the Journal of Scientific Exploration is the Book Review Section which covers an enormous range of intellectually fascinating material.

Of course there have also been many discussions of evidence relating to extrasensory perception, survival after death, the basis for UFO accounts, possibly artificial objects on Mars, and others where my own personal inclination has been to regard the evidence as in some way misleading or misinterpreted. Nevertheless, it has been enlightening, mind-expanding, a wonderful learning experience to find intelligent, sensible people of high conventional accomplishment who take a  serious interest in matters that I would never have looked at, had I not come to know and respect these people. It has been a rare and salutary education to recognize that everyone, myself included, may turn out to be mistaken even on something about which they have been very sure. Human beings are fallible, gaining new and deeper understanding of the world is difficult, science can only proceed by trial and error. But unless we explore beyond the boundaries of what is currently believed, we can only remain stuck with what we now understand — which no one, I trust, regards as eternally satisfactory.

Individuals like Colin Campbell or Thomas Gold who happen on the Society by chance often describe it in the most glowing terms, typically as the sort of organization that represents what genuine science ought to be, by contrast to the rather ossified and bureaucratic arrangements that have become the norm in mainstream venues. One of the other aspects that typically charms is the opportunity to interact in a meaningful way with people highly knowledgeable in so wide a variety of fields: such disciplines as sociology, music, history, literature as well as the “harder” scientific and engineering ones.

I look forward eagerly to next year’s meeting, even as it is still 11 months away. In the meantime, I am already relishing the opportunity this November to meet in person so many AIDS Rethinkers whom I have long admired from a distance.

Posted in HIV does not cause AIDS | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

HIV/AIDS Books for Inmate

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/06/09

I received a request for books about HIV/AIDS and about paranormal phenomena from someone in  Folsom Prison. It would be a good deed to send any such that you can spare to

Kenneth R. Johnson
P. O. Box 29 (ABC)
300 Prison Road
Represa  CA  95671

Posted in HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, Legal aspects | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Kalichman and Nazis — K’s anything-but-Komical self-revealing Kaper (#12)

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/06/07

Like several other fanatical believers in HIV/AIDS theory (for instance, Gallo et al. [2006], Cameron [2005]), Kalichman insists that there’s a meaningful similarity between “HIV/AIDS denialism” and “Holocaust denialism” (pp. 8-12); for example (p. 9):
“the link to Holocaust denialism means that the word is emotionally charged. Still, I defend my use of the term because I believe it best describes the rejection of objective reality to sustain a flawed, hurtful, and ultimately dangerous belief system”.

What’s basically wrong with this is the failure to demonstrate that “HIV/AIDS denialists” actually reject objective reality, or that we have a “belief system”, or that this supposed “belief system” is flawed, hurtful, or dangerous.  Kalichman’s approach exemplifies the attempt to ascribe guilt by association, asserting that’s what’s wrong with A is also wrong with B without presenting actual evidence that they share any common characteristics; he just says they do.

Kalichman, like Cameron, Gallo, and other HIV/AIDS vigilantes, has no interest in arguing such a case on the basis of evidence — because, of course, he can’t. The whole and only purpose of using terms like “denialism”, and invoking Holocaust denialism as a type specimen, is to arouse moral outrage and to brand AIDS Rethinkers and HIV Skeptics as unfit for intellectual discourse about the substantive issues. And that, as I’ve remarked several times, is attempted because the HIV/AIDS believers can’t answer our questions and can’t support their case with convincing evidence.

The bees in Kalichman’s bonnet include Nazis as well as Holocaust denialism. He makes the extraordinary claim that AIDS Rethinkers and HIV Skeptics call AIDS scientists Nazis:
“As expected [Kalichman doesn’t say by whom or why], denialists refer to AIDS scientists and medical specialists as Nazis, the mafia, and murderers” (p. 10); “AIDS scientists are typically portrayed as evil doers or even Nazis pitted again truth seekers” (101); “denialists are insulting our integrity and the value of our life’s work. Referring to AIDS scientists as conspirators, frauds, Nazis and child killers” (113); “a rather bizarre and unique feature of HIV/AIDS denialism is its repeated reference to AIDS scientists as Nazis” (143).

However, Kalichman offers only one documented example of denialists using the term “Nazis” in reference to HIV/AIDS vigilantes, namely, South African attorney Anthony Brink (pp. 144-45). Kalichman here accuses President Mbeki of it too, but fails to provide a needed reference — such an utterance seems uncharacteristic of Mbeki. Thus Kalichman commits the “single study fallacy”, which he incorrectly accuses others of committing.

Brink’s tirade could be plausibly excused (“to understand is to excuse”) as provoked by the incessant and intemperate “into the streets” tactics of HIV/AIDS “activists” in South Africa, but I personally have no more wish to excuse or condone it  than I excuse or condone application of the term “Holocaust denialists” to Rethinkers. Both are equally invalid intellectually and are used solely for polemic purpose. I invite Kalichman, too, to reject deployment of “Holocaust denialism” for the same reason that one objects to comparisons with Nazis.

Note too that the Brink piece is a self-published work, as Kalichman notes. One of the drawbacks of such publication is that one doesn’t get the benefit of an independent view and independent advice from an editor, and so one isn’t forced to second and third thoughts about what one writes. Kalichman doesn’t have that excuse for his “Holocaust” remarks, since he specifically acknowledges the excellence of the editorial help he received, and I can’t imagine that an even half-way competent editor would not have queried Kalichman about so egregiously offensive an assertion.

So one is forced to the sad conclusion that Kalichman makes the Holocaust reference after having considered it carefully.  However, his ignorance on such matters is quite extraordinary:

“The great irony of the denialists’ Nazi allusions to AIDS scientists, of course, is that they base their argument on the views of a group of German men born during the years of Nazism while making Nazi references to AIDS scientists, who are often Jews” (145).

I’ve already pointed out that Kalichman has provided no evidence — indeed, NEGATIVE evidence — that “Germans” are represented among AIDS Rethinkers in above-chance proportion [“The German Connection, contd.: How not to test an hypothesis (Kalichman’s Komical Kaper #3, part 2)”, 25 March 2009]. Now he implies something even more ludicrous, that just being born during the Nazi era somehow predisposes to “denialism”. A fortiori, he offers no evidence at all that Jews are “often” to be found among AIDS scientists — in other words, that Jews are found among AIDS scientists in greater proportion than among AIDS Rethinkers or among scientists in general.

If only that were the worst of it, making wild generalizations without a shred of supporting data. What will in addition be sadly evident to people who do know something about these things — Germans, Jews, Nazis, Holocausts — is that Kalichman evidently himself believes what the Nazis initiated and believed:  that one could not and cannot be at the same time a German and a Jew.

In point of fact, by the early 20th century Jews had assimilated into German culture more seamlessly than they had in any other European country. One of the huge tragedies of the Hitler era for so many German Jews was to be ejected from and rejected by what they had regarded for generations as their homeland, their fatherland, the nation for which they and their forebears had fought in wars, the nation they thought they belonged to just as fully as their Catholic or Protestant fellow countrymen.

Now Kalichman reveals the same baseless, racist belief, that Germans and Jews are two different breeds, the “denialists” and the “scientists”. He just takes the opposite tack to the Nazis, this time the Germans are the bad guys and the Jews are the good guys. But the dichotomy Kalichman embraces is identically the same dichotomy as the Nazis introduced.

Kalichman thinks about Germans and Jews in the same way as the Nazis did. That’s what he states in his book.


Cameron 2005. Witness to AIDS.
Gallo et al. 2006. Errors in Celia Farber’s March 2006 article in Harper’s Magazine; final version, 22 March;

Posted in experts, HIV absurdities, prejudice | Tagged: , , | 6 Comments »

The Wonderland of “HIV” “tests”

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/06/04

“HIV” tests are self-fulfilling prophecies (“HIV” tests are self-fulfilling prophecies, 10 May 2009). Those prophecies are particularly powerful since the actual physical tests are demonstrably invalid (“HIV” tests are demonstrably invalid, 19 May 2009). That’s not all (though it’s surely more than enough). Even as tools for academic research, the application of these tests is fraught. For example, a sub-specialty in HIV/AIDS research is the study of genetic diversity of the innumerable purported strains of “HIV”, including attempts to trace the purported origin of “HIV”. The latter has often relied on the examination of samples preserved from cases described decades ago. Whether those samples can properly be used for this purpose is highly doubtful: “Specimen integrity can have a significant impact on the performance of any assay [nota bene, any]. Manufacturers generally recommend that their kits be used on fresh sera” (p. 158 in Weiss & Cowan, “Laboratory detection of human retroviral infection”, cited in an earlier post (“HIV” tests are self-fulfilling prophecies, 10 May 2009).

A number of other statements in that review article contradict some additional, frequently dogmatic, claims made by defenders of HIV/AIDS theory:
— “virus can usually be recovered from seropositive persons” (p. 148, emphasis added; nota bene, not always). In addition, of course, virus is never “recovered” from anyone — see “Isolation” of “HIV”, below.
—  “Only a fraction of initially seropositive newborns are actually HIV-infected” (p. 148) — yet all “HIV-positive” pregnant women and all their babies (at least during birth) are supposed to take the toxic antiretroviral drugs.
— “supplemental testing [is] sometimes referred to colloquially as ‘confirmatory testing’” (p. 155); euphemism again — it’s not “colloquially”, it’s misleadingly. Furthermore, Weiss & Cowan themselves later forget this point and speak of confirmatory assays (e.g., p. 160). They also note that such supplemental or confirmatory tests are not independent of one another since they all look for antibodies, leading to “overestimation of predictive values with most ‘supplementary’ tests”.
— “Early studies [of AIDS patients]  . . . characterized immunologic impairment, particularly low CD4 counts, comparatively elevated CD8 counts, and a low CD4/CD8 ratio. Persons without AIDS, but who had similar risk behaviors as those with AIDS, frequently also had similar abnormalities. . . . tests of immune function remained useful for staging patients, but confirmed the expectation that they were not sufficiently accurate to be used to predict if a given individual were infected with HIV” (p. 161).
Hello! One should not use criteria based on CD4 counts for diagnosis? Yet it’s routine — in the United States — to tell “HIV-positive” individuals with CD4  <200 that they have “AIDS”, despite the fact that the “HIV” test itself is an invalid self-fulfilling prophecy.
Note too the admission that immunologic disturbances can result from a range of “risk behaviors”
—  “demonstration that an assay specifically measures viral antigen was a  challenging task, insofar as there are no independent laboratory criteria. The specificity of a given assay is likely to prove greater in an acellular sterile body fluid such as cerebrospinal fluid. Moreover, antigen that is detected need not represent viable virus, so care in clinical and epidemiological interpretation may be necessary” (p. 164). Note in passing the euphemisms and weasel words, “challenging” ( = impossible in this context), “need not” (= do not), “care” (impossible, given the lack of definitive guiding criteria), “may be necessary” (God help us!). The substance of this revelation is that if any cellular material is present, then one cannot validly ascribe the presence of “HIV antigen” to the presence of “HIV”; and even in the absence of potentially confounding material, the mere presence of an “HIV antigen” does not mean that actual “HIV” is present.
— How to interpret a positive nucleic-acid test where antibody tests are negative is controversial; it “reflects our still emerging understanding of the biology of retroviral infection” (p. 167). This stands in stark contradiction to the claim made not infrequently by HIV/AIDS dogmatists as early as 1991 that “we probably know more about how HIV produces its pathology than about the pathological mechanism of virtually any other microbe’’ (p. 296 in Gallo, “Virus Hunting”, 1991)”.
— “molecular epidemiological analyses thus remain a research tool, with many theoretical and practical limitations to more generalized use” (p. 167) — something to bear in mind when the media disseminate some laboratory’s proud announcement that they have traced the origin of “HIV” through genetic analysis of its myriad  mutants.

A stunningly revealing statement is that “AIDS patients with opportunistic infections have been shown to be significantly less reactive by EIA [ELISA] than AIDS patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma” (p. 159). Yet Kaposi’s is no longer ascribed to “HIV”, it’s “credited” to HHV-8; and moreover Kaposi’s is here implicitly admitted not to be an opportunistic infection. Yet “AIDS” patients who present with Kaposi’s are more likely to test “HIV-positive” than “AIDS” patients who are “really” infected with “HIV”!
But HIV/AIDS theorists can explain anything and everything, even such apparent contradictions. Here, the idea is that since “HIV” infection destroys the immune system, it is less able to generate the “HIV” antibodies that the tests detect. Let’s carry that nice ad hoc hypothesis a little further. By the time AIDS sets in, the immune system has been thoroughly decimated, so few if any antibodies can any longer be generated — thus AIDS patients will no longer test “HIV-positive”. OOPS! The tests were invented on the basis of reactivity of sera from AIDS patients . . . .

Complexities abound. “The relative titers of viral component-specific antibodies vary over time in individuals, leading to systematic differences in EIA reactivity (and, consequently, detection rates) among various populations or patient groups”. Or, in plainer language and exaggerating only somewhat, “HIV” tests are not always “HIV” tests?

Then, too, “in some persons HIV antigen may be produced in sufficient quantities to form immune complexes with corresponding HIV antibodies, potentially reducing the ability of those antibodies to bind to viral antigens in the assay and giving a false negative test result”. A layman’s question: If one is infected with “HIV”, would there not of necessity be “HIV” antigens present? Aren’t they what induce the generation of “HIV” antibodies?

Why Africans and African-Americans test “HIV-positive” more frequently than others:
Several sources of false positives are particularly prevalent in Africa that “may, in effect, systematically shift the standardization curve for African sera as compared to U.S. and European sera” — or, in other words, Africans are more likely to test “HIV-positive” on the tests developed for Europeans. That’s why people of African ancestry test “HIV-positive” at far higher rates than others. The “HIV” tests are racially biased — as I’ve said in 3 chapters of my book and in a number of blog posts.

This review of proper “HIV” testing makes a point at several places of the need to tune the tests to their particular purpose (screening, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment-related) and to the general prevalence in each tested population. That underscores how significant are the demographic constancies that I’ve cited as showing “HIV” to be endemic and not infectious. The same racial disparities — qualitative always, semi-quantitative usually, quantitative in many instances — are found among blood donors, military cohorts, pregnant women, babies, gay men, drug abusers, despite the different testing circumstances. Thus the disparities really are determined by race — they appear to be independent of the particular testing approach, since the differences show up in every type of test, be it of low sensitivity or high sensitivity, low specificity or high specificity.

Nucleic acid tests (NATs):
Weiss & Cowan are no more reassuring about the reliability of NATs than they are about antibody tests or direct tests for “HIV” antigens. (Regarding the latter, they mention “detection of HIV-1 p24 antigen, which can detect HIV-1 approximately 16-17 days following infection” [p. 161]. The uninitiated may not recognize the huge uncertainty underlying this bland assertion, in that there is no way to observe that a new “infection” has occurred; those 16-17 days represent an inference based on indirect evidence and a multitude of assumptions.)

With nucleic-acid detection, potential failings are again legion:
— “The region chosen for detection and amplification requires care”; again that euphemistic “care” standing for “there’s a lack of definitive guidance”.
— “Amplifying pro-viral integrated HIV within the human genome is analogous to finding successfully the proverbial needle-in-a-haystack”.
— “the nucleotides flanking a presumed constant region may vary (primer failure) or the amplified region may vary (probe failure)” — note “presumed”. All NATs presuppose a knowledge of a certain sequence of nucleotides characteristic of “HIV”, and in absence of a gold standard, this is guesswork based on indirect evidence.
— “The exponential amplification [the basis for PCR, used in all NATs] carries great risk of inadvertent contamination”.
— “Viral variation or defective viruses . . . may contribute to indeterminate results”.
(All the above bulleted points are from p. 165).

“Since defective retrovirus variants may be among those amplified, and at least in theory might be the only HIV detected, a positive NAT result (particularly in a seronegative individual) does not necessarily indicate active infection” (p. 166).


Nevertheless, these tests are the basis for informing countless individuals that they are “HIV”-infected.

“Isolation” of “HIV”:
HIV/AIDS enthusiasts like to talk of “isolating” “HIV”, by which they mean something quite different than the usual, normal meaning of “extracting in pure form”. It is actually successive culturing, which involves “the use of carefully selected permissive cell lines . . . or co-cultivation with fresh, normal lymphocytes which have been stimulated with mitogens and maintained with T-cell growth factor (and sometimes alpha-interferon) . . . . HIV isolates with a propensity for growth in specific lines . . . may reflect differences in cellular biology among HIV isolates”; and, once again, “Positive cultures may indicate either active or latent HIV infective states” (p. 167).

Thus, when one reads that “HIV was isolated” from someone, that’s no proof that the person is infected!

There could hardly be a clearer illustration of the dangers of taking technical jargon used by specialists as having the same meaning as the same words when they are commonly used with their dictionary meaning.

Posted in experts, HIV and race, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV/AIDS numbers | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »