HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Archive for August, 2009

“HIV/AIDS” in Estonia: Demographics and Shibboleths

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/08/18

The role of drugs — the “Drug-AIDS” or “Chemical-AIDS” hypothesis
In an earlier post, Estonian data were cited in support of the view that the majority of so-called “HIV” and “AIDS” cases there — and by extension in much of Europe and Asia — are really cases of people having become ill through abuse of “recreational” drugs. That becoming ill is a plausible consequence of such abuse hardly needs to be proved (except perhaps to aficionados of the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy), but its specific plausibility in the Estonian circumstances is underscored by these facts from Tallinn, capital of Estonia, gathered  because of the brief epidemic of drug abuse in the early 2000s (1):
·    Drug abuse (without injecting) started at an average age of 16.3 (median 16.0, range 9-40)
·    Injecting of drugs started at an average age of 18.7  (median 18.0, range 10-42)
·    Duration of drug abuse  averaged 7.9 years (SD 4.4)
·    Frequency of drug abuse averaged 22 days (median 28) in every 28 days (4 weeks), and >60% injected daily, an average of 3 times per day
·    At least one overdose had been experienced by two thirds of the addicts
·    One third supported themselves and their habit through theft.

It is rather difficult to imagine that this behavior could be rendered health-supporting by the provision of clean needles, which is the approach recommended by HIV/AIDS gurus. After all, 8 years of imbibing drugs, 3 times daily and occasionally at overdose- or near-overdose levels, is not highly recommended even for such non-prescription medications as acetaminophen.

More than 1300 of the new “HIV” cases in Estonia in 2001 were drug addicts, and something like 2000 of the >4400 “HIV” cases (38-63%) from 2002 to 2007. It’s rather remarkable that this led to no more than a total of 212 deaths from “HIV disease” by 2008. Perhaps this high survival rate reflects the very young age at which drug abuse typically started, teenagers and young adults being able to withstand all sorts of physiological insults — for a few years.

The median age for “HIV” diagnoses increased from 20.3 to 27.8 among males, and from 18.4 to 25.6 among females, between 2000 and 2007, consistent with a decreasing proportion of diagnoses being among drug addicts, who started abusing in their teens. Overall, the median age (through 2007) for an “AIDS” diagnosis was just under 30, quite consistent with the ill-health effects of an average of 8 years of drug abuse beginning in the teens (2).

Demographics: Age and Sex
One of the demographic features that had convinced me that “HIV-positive” does not represent an infectious condition is the manner in which the tendency to test positive varies with age and sex in every tested group for which I found data:


The Estonian numbers show (qualitatively or perhaps semi-quantitatively) the same variations: the male-to-female ratio is 1.4 at ages 0-19, 2.5 at 20-24, 3.6 at 25-29, 3.4 at 30-34, and 2.5 for ≥35.

That is surely remarkable, given that the Estonian data come from a population in which drug abusers constitute the majority whereas the American data come from populations where drug abusers comprise a very small percentage only. This supports my hypothesis that the tendency to test “HIV-positive” is strongly influenced by normal variations with age and by sex of whatever the physiological conditions are that stimulate an “HIV-positive” response.

Shibboleths — Synergy of HIV and STDs?
One of the hoary shibboleths of HIV/AIDS lore is that the presence of a sexually transmitted infection makes it more likely that one will contract “HIV” upon exposure, and vice versa (CDC Fact Sheets for trichomonas, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis):
“The genital inflammation caused by trichomoniasis can increase a woman’s susceptibility to HIV infection if she is exposed to the virus. Having trichomoniasis may increase the chance that an HIV-infected woman passes HIV to her sex partner(s).”
“Gonorrhea can spread to the blood or joints. This condition can be life threatening. In addition, people with gonorrhea can more easily contract HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. HIV-infected people with gonorrhea can transmit HIV more easily to someone else than if they did not have gonorrhea.”
“Women infected with chlamydia are up to five times more likely to become infected with HIV, if exposed.”
“Genital sores (chancres) caused by syphilis make it easier to transmit and acquire HIV infection sexually. There is an estimated 2- to 5-fold increased risk of acquiring HIV if exposed to that infection when syphilis is present. . . . Ulcerative STDs that cause sores, ulcers, or breaks in the skin or mucous membranes, such as syphilis, disrupt barriers that provide protection against infections. The genital ulcers caused by syphilis can bleed easily, and when they come into contact with oral and rectal mucosa during sex, increase the infectiousness of and susceptibility to HIV. Having other STDs is also an important predictor for becoming HIV infected because STDs are a marker for behaviors associated with HIV transmission.”

One would therefore be inclined to expect that incidence of “HIV” and of these known STDs would show a distinct correlation. Not in Estonia, however:


In Estonia, “HIV” correlates strongly with the incidence of drug abuse and not with the incidence of sexually transmitted infections.

(1) Prevalence of HIV and Other Infections and Risk Behaviour among Injecting Drug Users in Latvia, Lithuania And Estonia In 2007,, accessed 24 July 2009
(2) Calculations based on Tables 2 and 17 in Report on HIV/AIDS through 31 December 2007,, accessed 24 July 2009.

Posted in HIV as stress, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV transmission, HIV varies with age, HIV/AIDS numbers, M/F ratios, sexual transmission | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

PDF of the Kalichman/Newton saga

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/08/13

I’ve been very remiss about posting PDF’s of blog posts, as I’d been asked to do quite a while ago. An obvious candidate for such a PDF is a collection of the blog posts about Jekyll-Kalichman and Hyde-Newton, so I’m making that available now. To the 5 Chapters of this Strange Tale I’ve added an Epilogue that summarizes the salient failings of the Kalichman book, with links to the blog posts that give full details of the particular flaws.


Posted in HIV absurdities, HIV skepticism, prejudice | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Estonian drug addicts don’t have much sex

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/08/13

Actually it’s not only in Estonia, it’s throughout the Slavic world, indeed throughout all of Eastern Europe and as far as northern Asia.

More than a year ago, this remarkable fact was revealed in the specialist literature (Cohen et al., Journal of Clinical Investigation, 118 [2008] 1244-54) by some of the leading experts on HIV/AIDS including Kevin De Cock, director of the World Health Organization’s Division of HIV/AIDS, and several others like Jay Levy who have also been prominent researchers of the “epidemic” since it was first invented. They pointed out [HIV/AIDS ILLUSTRATES COGNITIVE DISSONANCE, 29 April 2008] that in Eastern Europe, about 85% of “HIV-infected” people are injecting drug users, about 5-10% are gay men, and the remaining <10% engage in casual sex. This is in stark contrast to the hotter regions of the globe — in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, fully 50% of “HIV-infected” engage in marital sex; in Latin America and the Caribbean, >60% engage in gay sex but <10% in either marital sex or casual sex.

Of course, these prominent experts expressed the facts in euphemistic form, as though it were that 85% of the “transmission” of “HIV” occurred in Eastern Europe via shared infected needles; but the alert observer will nevertheless have discerned the clear inference that these “infected” drug addicts very rarely have casual or gay sex, since so little “transmission” occurs in that way. (That the categories “MSM” — men who have sex with men — and “Casual sex” were given by Cohen et al. as distinct is no doubt a subtle way of making the politically correct point that gay sex is never casual.)

Through the good offices of a friend in Estonia, I was able to obtain (together with needed translations) data on “HIV” and “AIDS” in that country. Fully confirmed is the finding of Cohen et al. that the “epidemic” of HIV/AIDS is restricted to injecting drug users to such a degree that these individuals must refrain from sex to an extraordinary extent; whether this is because of an altruistic desire not to spread “HIV”, or to the debilitating effects of the drugs, is not mentioned in any of the literature that I have so far seen. The fact, however, is quite clear, and moreover was confirmed by Kevin De Cock when he stated recently that there would never be an epidemic of heterosexually transmitted “HIV” outside Africa:
A 25-year health campaign was misplaced. . . . there will be no generalised epidemic of AIDS in the heterosexual population outside Africa
[WHO SAYS that WE’VE BEEN VERY WRONG about HIV and AIDS? (Clue: WHO = World Health Organization), 10 June 2008 ].

At any rate, here are some of the official data from Estonia. Note first, by the way, that if “HIV” is not a threat in Estonia, then it certainly isn’t a threat in Europe or Northern Asia either, because those regions are even less affected than Estonia (1):


In Estonia, “HIV” was absent or negligible until about 2000, and since 2005 the incidence has seemed stable at about 0.05% (~650 in a population of ~1.3 million). The incidence of AIDS is more than an order of magnitude less than that; and deaths from “HIV disease” seem to have been steady in the last few years at less than 50 out of more than 15,000 deaths from all causes — about 0.3% of all deaths, which is roughly half of the rate in the United States.


The great majority of both HIV and AIDS cases have occurred in drug addicts: 111 of the 191 AIDS cases, 1992-2007, and  between 38% (in 2007)  and 90% (in 2001) of new HIV cases (1). Moreover, up to 40% of all AIDS-related  deaths are actually due to TB (WHO 2006, cited in [1]).


“HIV” is diagnosed by tests that react “positive” under a great variety of conditions, from as unthreatening as flu vaccination to as threatening as malaria or tuberculosis. Drug abuse is unquestionably a health challenge, to put it at its euphemistically absurd mildest. Which is a more likely explanation for the minuscule rate of “HIV” and “AIDS” in Estonia:

1. “HIV” detected in Estonia is an infectious pathogen spread via blood, sex, and infected needles;
2. “HIV” in Estonia represents “positive” tests reflecting everything from vaccination to tuberculosis, but especially (and in most cases) the damage to health caused by drug abuse.

Obviously explanation 2 is far more plausible. In further support, THINK about how shared needling could possibly bring about the sort of brief “epidemic” displayed in the Estonian data. It’s the same sort of situation as I’ve pointed to before in connection with the “outbreaks” of “HIV-positive” babies born to HIV-negative mothers in several places [HIV/AIDS in Italy—and “NEEDLE ZERO”, 11 October 2008; “’Needle ZERO’ again; or, HIV pops up magically out of nowhere”, 15 November 2008]. Where and how did the original infected needle acquire its deadly burden, a burden which cannot long survive outside body fluids?

To my mind, the data supports the “chemical AIDS” hypothesis as an explanation for the great majority of Estonian “HIV” and “AIDS” reports; as does the situation in Italy [HIV/AIDS in Italy—and “NEEDLE ZERO”, 11 October 2008; “Needle ZERO” again; or, HIV pops up magically out of nowhere, 15 November 2008; Official Italian data: no causal connection between HIV and AIDS, 12 July 2009; Italian analysis of HIV/AIDS data, 17 July 2009].

(1) Prevalence of HIV and Other Infections and Risk Behaviour among Injecting Drug Users in Latvia, Lithuania And Estonia In 2007,, accessed 24 July 2009
(2) Report on HIV/AIDS through 31 December 2007,, accessed 24 July 2009
(3), accessed 24 July 2009

or, HIV pops up magically out of nowhere, 15 November 2008

Posted in experts, HIV absurdities, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV transmission, HIV/AIDS numbers, sexual transmission | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Another woman survives antiretroviral drugs

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/08/09

Onnie Mary Phuthe is a young Botswana woman who realized the harm that antiretroviral drugs were doing her, stopped taking them, and has regained her health. She forwarded an e-mail she had sent Anthony Brink, to be used publicly ad lib. She had attached copies of her lab reports and prescription history, confirming that she stopped filling the prescriptions.

Onnie has only dial-up Internet service, so blogging is slow and difficult for her; but her strength of character comes clearly through her own words (below, unedited):

“True I want to share the evidence of what the eqivalent to the rat poison did to me it is documented. Feel free to use these any way you see fit. I was on the following treatments to address MY HIV TYPE 1 AND HIV TYPE 2 POSITIVE RESULTS
1st set of arv I took for 6 weeks ( mid aug 2001)
second set in mid August 2001 until feb 2008
feb 2008 to 16/10/2008
16/10/2008 – 16/06/2009

If I die from not taking th arv is far btter for m to accept since the argony and pain sufferering has stopped since I stopped the arv. I have not done any hiv monitoring tests yet, and I will not do them. The peace I have now is more superior that the drugs and follow up that I would need to go throw. This is the basis I have resigned form beong a board mmber of Botswana Network of People Living with HIV and AIDS. I CAN NOT ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO BE ON ARV. IT HAS NOT WORKD FOR ME.  IT MAKES ME FEEL GUILTY OF MURDER TO EVEN SUGGEST THE ARV THERAPY.



Onnie has also joined Facebook and gives more details there, as well as on a blog .


Joyce Ann Hafford died in pregnancy during a clinical trial of antiretroviral drugs. The very purpose of that trial sickens me: “to compare the ‘treatment-limiting toxicities’ of two anti-HIV drug regimens” (Celia Farber, “Out of Control: AIDS and the corruption of medical science”, Harper’s Magazine, March 2006, 37-52). In other words, find the highest dosage that doesn’t kill. To gauge and compare toxicities, of course one has to explore regions where the toxicity is appreciable. It seems obvious that the risk of death in such a trial has to be appreciable.


Quite often I wonder how many others have suffered Joyce Hafford’s fate, or barely avoided it. It’s impossible to know, because it is so easy to write off the death of anyone being “treated” for HIV/AIDS as death owing to HIV/AIDS and not to the “medications” — even as it is acknowledged that more than half of the “serious adverse events” occurring in HAART-treated people are owing to the drugs and not to AIDS (NIH Treatment Guidelines,  November 2008, p. 21); and the average age of death of confirmed HIV/AIDS-theory-believing activists, who surely “comply” better than most with their “treatment” regimens, is tragically low, in the 40s for the men and at age 50 for the women [“AIDS” deaths: owing to antiretroviral drugs or to lack of antiretroviral treatment?, 2 October 2008].

Quite often I wonder how many other healthy women have been subjected to the same sort of ordeal that Onnie experienced for years and managed to survive. We know of Kim Bannon, Maria Papagiannidou, Audrey Serrano, Karri Stokely.
Noreen Martin rejected antiretroviral drugs from the beginning, and provides information about the benefits of low-dose naltrexone as an immune-system booster.

Just after my book was published, I received an e-mail from a lady who wanted to meet and talk about it. She had had surgery for uterine cancer, was told she was “HIV-positive”, and was put on antiretroviral drugs. She remained in hospital for 6 months owing to various drug side-effects, and finally decided to stop taking the pills. Her health recovered, but she continued to wonder whether she should try those drugs again. A friend told her of my book, and she wanted to meet the author to gauge his trustworthiness. I judged her to be in her thirties.


How many more women will experience these emotional and physical devastations before the absurdities of HIV/AIDS theory bring it down?

How many more men, of whom there are surely a far greater number, given the HIV/AIDS preoccupation with gay men and their apparent propensity to test “HIV-positive” so often? It was an enlightening and emotionally difficult experience for me last April, at the meeting Brian Carter organized of Alive-&-Well people in Los Angeles, to see these intelligent, evidently healthy “HIV-positive” men wrestling with the perpetual quandary of whether to believe their own experience and those of their friends or to follow the advice of their physicians.

And what will the many physicians do, who have been in all good faith prescribing these toxic drugs, when they have to accept that they killed their patients by believing what the leading gurus and official institutions of medical science had been telling them?

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, clinical trials, experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV/AIDS numbers | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 28 Comments »

Don’t wrestle with pigs

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/08/06

“Don’t wrestle with pigs, because the pigs like it and you get dirty”

I was reminded of this useful advice by Ross Douthat’s review of DIGITAL BARBARISM: A WRITER’S MANIFESTO by Mark Helprin (“Into the fray”, New York Times Book Review, 21 June 2009, p. 13).

Helprin had apparently entered Internet exchanges about copyright questions without previous experience of blogs, flaming, personal attacks from anonymous sources, and so on. So he became “the latest distinguished writer to come undone in this way”, like “the sportswriter Buzz Bissinger [who committed] . . . a spittle-flecked rant against blogging” or “Lee Siegel . . . who . . . resorted to ‘sock puppetry,’ creating an online alter ego who hotly defended the ‘brave’ and ‘brilliant’ Siegel”. (See also “Impersonation is a crime, even on the Internet”, 29 June 2009.)

Douthat points out how self-defeating it is to allow the momentary passions aroused by anonymous Internet barbarians to tempt one into getting down in the mud with them in a pig-wrestling contest:
— Helprin’s book is “a furious treatise” that inevitably comes across as “hectoring, pompous and enormously tedious”. [Who, after all, is interested in following rant and counter-rant?]
— That “a Talmud” could — according to Helprin — be written about the anonymous blogging commentariat “does not mean that one should”;
— especially when that involves “the peculiarity of arguing with anonymous comments rather than . . . more intellectually serious targets”.
— Helprin allowed himself to engage in name-calling whose “overall effect is like listening to an erudite gentleman employing $20 words while he screams at a bunch of punk kids to get off his front lawn”.

I had something to say about Internet gutter culture in Beware the Internet: “reviews”, Wikipedia, and other sources of misinformation, 11 April 2009”.  From Douthat’s review, I would like to add:

The copyright argument had brought untold numbers of comments; “And since this was, after all, the Internet, most of them were stupid”. Some “feuds are better left unfeuded”.


I’ve expressed views similar to Douthat’s in a number of earlier posts. My attitude toward anonymous defenders of the HIV/AIDS faith bears repeating [“Defenders of the HIV/AIDS Faith: Why Anonymous?”, 6 November 2008]:

“I can’t bring myself to engage in discussion with people who are unwilling to tell me who they are. It throws immediate doubt on their bona fides. Signing one’s name to one’s opinions seems to me the natural as well as proper thing to do, and I’m one of those who always signed manuscript reviews even when the journal policy did not require it. I think it’s a useful form of self-discipline, to ensure that one is being as honest and unbiased as humanly possible.”

Of course I don’t insist that AIDS Rethinkers allow their real names to be published when they comment on this blog, because there are so many potentially unpleasant consequences for those who question HIV/AIDS orthodoxy; but I personally am privy to their identity. Defenders of the HIV/AIDS faith, on the other hand, can offer no good reason for anonymity on the blog, still less for a refusal to identify themselves to me in confidence.

Posted in HIV skepticism, prejudice, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »