HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

HAART? You’ve got to be crazy . . .

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/09/07

Early “HIV” surveys had revealed that “HIV-positive” status is quite common among psychiatric patients. Indeed, rates of “HIV-positive” were found to be higher in psychiatric hospitals than in HIV clinics, prisons, or abortion clinics, and within the range found among the highest-risk groups of TB patients, drug abusers, and gay men:


It is a natural inference from this manner in which “HIV” varies between groups that “HIV-positive” status is a highly non-specific condition, associated with a large range of conditions that bespeak physiological stress of some sort and not necessarily an infection.

That people with serious emotional or mental illnesses are under physiological stress is self-evident. By contrast, it is implausible and problematic, why patients in psychiatric hospitals should be so much more likely to contract or to have contracted a sexually transmitted disease (STD), particularly one that is so difficult to contract since it is transmitted at such a low rate — about 1 per 1000 unprotected sexual contacts, orders of magnitude less than the common STDs.

Nevertheless, mainstreamers have no other explanation than infection for “HIV-positive” status, so the study of “HIV” in people with mental illness is a fairly flourishing sub-trough of the Research Trough [Inventing more epidemics; the Research Trough; and “peer review” , 2 August 2009; The Research Trough — where lack of progress brings more grants, 10 September 2008]. Many questions can be devised: Do the mentally ill receive equal treatment for “HIV” as others do? Do they begin HAART under equivalent conditions? Do they adhere or non-adhere to HAART equally as others?

As usual in HIV/AIDS matters, studies have reached a variety of conclusions, and the promise of definitive answers is fertile ground for grant applications. Now Himelhof et al. [AIDS 2009, 23:1735-42] have published a longitudinal study of adherence to HAART, finding that “Individuals with psychiatric disorders were significantly less likely to discontinue HAART in the first and second years of treatment. Mental health visits are associated with decreased risk of discontinuing HAART”.
(In more detail:
“patients with six to 11 mental health visits in a year were 22% less likely to discontinue HAART, whereas those with 12 or more mental health visits in a year were 40% less likely to discontinue HAART compared with patients with no mental health visits”).

The first sentence can be rephrased thus:
“People of sound mind are more likely to discontinue HAART than are people who suffer from mental illness”.
The second sentence can be rephrased thus:
”People who are being frequently brainwashed by mental-health professionals are more likely to continue on HAART than are people who are not being continually urged to remain on HAART despite the nasty ‘side’-effects.”

18 Responses to “HAART? You’ve got to be crazy . . .”

  1. david m brooks said

    Cute…but the reality is that one would be crazy not to use HAART if HIV+. In the early days a diagnosis of HIV infection meant an early death from AIDS; after HAART death rates dropped dramatically, and HIV+ status means a chronic condition.

    See for example this 1998 NEJM paper:
    Declining Morbidity and Mortality among Patients with Advanced Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection
    With all the money, politics, and bureaucracies involved no doubt there is a lot to be critical of in AIDS treatment, prevention, funding, etc. I’m sure that there is a lot to “rethink;” such has HIV/AIDS in Africa been greatly overestimated, and the poor quality of science used to push circumcision.
    But the basic thesis that HIV is the primary cause of AIDS is well supported by the effectiveness of the anti-retro-viral therapies that target the AIDS virus.
    I did like your articleSuppression of Science Within Science at and agree that there too often is a too early forced orthodoxy in the sciences (the cholesterol hypothesis is another example) but eventually the evidence is strong enough in support of one theory that the time to “rethink” is past.

  2. David,

    This article isn’t “cute” — it is true. Death rates didn’t drop dramatically after “HAART”, they dropped already two years prior to “HAART”. Look at the WHO statistics and the corresponding graphs and keep in mind that in industrialized countries “HAART” became available for the majority of patients only in 1997.

    As long as there are living and breathing human beings on Earth, the time to rethink any topic will never pass.

    What has definitely passed is the time for ignorance.

  3. Dear Mr. Brooks and Kalitzkus, please notice: in ten years without HAART, AIDS lethality rate in Italy significantly decreased from 95.2 (1986) to 49 (1996) (Centro Operativo AIDS. (2008) Notiziario dell’ISS. Vol. 21, No 5, suppl. 1. Available in Italian at the web page

    page 4, Table 1). In Italy, HAART was introduced in 1996 (Br J Cancer. 2009 Mar 10;100(5):840-7. Epub 2009 Feb 17). It can be assumed that this significant drop in lethality was due to early diagnosis and treatment of AIDS-defining diseases (such as tuberculosis), since no HAART was available until 1996. Interestingly, however, the same review of 2009 reports that “A significant excess of liver cancer (SIR=6.4) emerged in 1997-2004” (Br J Cancer. 2009 Mar 10;100(5):840-7. Epub 2009 Feb 17). And liver cancer is among “non-AIDS-defining cancers”. These are the data from mainstream orthodox publications, unless the Italian Ministry of Health and the Br J Cancer are to be considered “dissidents”!

    • William M said

      Yes, AIDS mortality rate declined at or near the time a new drug regimen was introduced.

      This is called correlation.

      It is also true that AIDS mortality rate greatly increased in 1987 at the time AZT was introduced.

      Do you accept this causal relation or not?

      The truth is AIDS cases peaked in 1993, even after the CDC nearly doubled the numbers of AIDS patients, by including a lot of symptom-free people. This meant, necessarily, mortality would soon peak too.

      • Henry Bauer said

        William M: Actually, the death rate among PWAs didn’t increase appreciably after 1986, see “HAART saves lives — but doesn’t prolong them!?”, 17 September 2008, but it didn’t decrease very much either. A rather complicated argument is needed to indict AZT for the death rate not lowering much. However, the substitution of HAART for monotherapy with AZT (or an analogue) brought a halving of mortality within a year. While the already declining mortality you mention is one plausible contributor, the sharp decline in mortality in one year surely means stopping a toxic treatment: the benefits of a better treatment could not show up so rapidly, since all that treatment is supposed to do is allow the immune system to SLOWLY RECOVER. So the toxicity of AZT monotherapy is demonstrated most obviously when it finally ceased.

  4. Cytotalker said

    The NIH numbers actually confirm the dissident viewpoint, in spite of the inaccurate if not outright sexing up of HAART in the NIH’s interpretation of the data. Please forgive my feeding the disingenuous their own kibble from here on.

    Growing numbers of children with HIV began receiving HAART between 1994 and 2000, and death rates declined annually during that period. Nearly 60 percent of all deaths in the study occurred before 1997, before the advent of HAART for the treatment of children; moreover, children who died were almost four times as likely to have never received HAART as those who survived.

    Allow me to extract the salient facts from the deceitful NIH spin above:

    Death rates declined from 1994 onward.

    HAART was introduced in 1997.

    More (sixty percent) died during the first half of the period of decline in death rates, while fewer died in the second half of the period of decline in death rates, an observation which is pretty much tautological, but it appears the NIH just does not grasp the obvious.

    More of those who died did not receive HAART. This is unremarkable considering that more died prior to the introduction of HAART.

    Those that died had a fourfold likelihood of no HAART. This “observation” is outright charlatanry if the NIH is using numbers for the entire observation period. The report does not state otherwise and would need to do so if the numbers were only for the HAART-era segment of the study. As currently worded, however, the observation obscures that sixty percent of the children died prior to the availability of HAART and continued to die at an expected rate consistent with the decline in deaths which began years before HAART. In other words, fourfold is a pumped-up figure because the pool of HAART recipients from half the observation period are utilized to create a ratio about the entire period. If this figure is based only on the HAART segment of the observation period, the text needs to be reworded.

    In the early years of the study, secondary infections killed more than one-third of the children who died, but from 2002 to 2006, that proportion fell to less than one-fourth. Over time, children and adolescents with HIV became more likely to die of kidney failure, stroke, or AIDS-induced multiple organ failure.

    Pre-HAART era infection declined significantly.

    HAART-induced iatrogenic maladies became prominent.

    The NIH attributes kidney failure and other organ failure to AIDS well knowing that these are iatrogenic HAART-induced killers. This is deliberate, outright lying and deception by them.

  5. Born Skeptic said

    Back to the issue which your article detailed, could it not be said that the reason why people with psychiatric illnesses having greater incidence of “HIV” is that they are more prone to not follow “Safe Sex” practices? One way to parse out the potential for this is to investigate this group’s incidence of other STDs. If they have no greater incidence of other STDs, then it is unlikely that they are somehow being particularly exposed to “HIV”.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Born Skeptic:
      The conclusion I draw from these and other data is that testing HIV-positive does not mean infection by HIV, a retrovirus that may not even exist. Please see my more recent publication, “HIV Tests Are Not HIV Tests”, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 15 [2010] 5-9

      • Born Skeptic said

        But, the question is, could this group of people be testing “positive” at higher rates because of their lack of adherence to so-called safe sex practices? Do you know of any studies that show this group has a higher rate of other STDs? Regardless of whether “HIV” has been properly isolated or not, let’s just assume it has, and let us consider that a plausible explanation exists for this particular group’s test rates.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Born Skeptic:
        In several countries in Asia, for example Thailand, the incidence of syphilis or gonorrhea decreased as “HIV-positive” increased, and vice versa. Official propaganda keeps insisting that if you have an STD, you are more likely to become “HIV-positive”, but the actual data don’t support that. Figure 22 in my book shows that rates of “HIV+” at STD clinics vary over an enormous range, from about 0.2% up to about 9%.
        “HIV” is not transmitted sexually, so “safe sex” is irrelevant.

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