HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Racist stereotypes are inherent in HIV/AIDS theory

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/02/08

“HIV” is spread primarily through sexual intercourse, according to official dogma. Particularly as a result of promiscuity, carelessness, irresponsibility in sexual behavior.
Africans and African Americans test “HIV-positive” at rates far exceeding those of any other identifiable racial group, and they do so in every social and economic sector: among repeat blood donors, pregnant women, gay men, newborns, military cohorts, applicants for marriage licenses, in prisons, in hospitals . . . . (see, for example, Tables 6-8, 10, 21, 22, 28 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory). Caribbean “Hispanics”, who have on average much African ancestry, test “HIV-positive” at a higher rate than Mexican “Hispanics” who have on average little African ancestry (pp. 71-3, ibid.).

A natural inference, a straightforward syllogism, leads to the conclusion that people of relatively recent African ancestry are, anywhere and everywhere, genetically predisposed to be carelessly and irresponsibly sexually promiscuous to a greater extent than other human beings. (“Relatively recent” means in the last couple of hundred thousand years, because ALL human beings are of African ancestry before that relatively recent diaspora of Homo out of Africa. So one has to postulate that such a purported genetic predisposition evolved during this recent period.)

If that conclusion seems obviously and absurdly wrong, as it does to me, then there’s something wrong with one or both of the first two parts of the syllogism: Either blacks do NOT always test “HIV-positive” significantly more often than others, or “HIV” is not spread primarily through sexual intercourse.

But the truth of one part of the syllogism is not controversial: Blacks do always test “HIV-positive” significantly more often than others. That’s mentioned frequently in publications of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and elsewhere, for example:
“In 2006, blacks made up 12% of the population aged >13  years but accounted for 46% of the number of persons  estimated to be living with HIV (1). Both the estimated  HIV  prevalence  and  incidence  rates  for  black  men  and  women were higher than those for any other racial/ethnic  population (1,2). Among black males, male-to-male sexual  contact accounted for 63% of new infections; among black  females, high-risk heterosexual contact accounted for 83%  of new infections (3) . . . .
during  2004–2007,  85% of diagnoses of perinatal HIV infection were in blacks or  African Americans (69%) or Hispanics or Latinos (16%). The  average  annual  rate  of  diagnoses  of  perinatal  HIV  infection  during 2004-2007 was 12.3 per 100,000 among blacks, 2.1 per  100,000 among Hispanics, and 0.5 per 100,000 among whites” (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 59[4], 5 February 2010).

That leaves only these possibilities: Either “HIV” isn’t spread primarily through sex, or blacks are, anywhere and everywhere, irresponsibly sexually promiscuous to a significantly greater extent than others — including among women and among gay men, and even among repeat blood donors, who are normally regarded as being the most tightly screened against all sorts of infections and thereby screened against unhealthy behavior. The incredible degree of postulated promiscuity is illustrated by the calculation performed by James Chin, former epidemiologist for the World Health Organization: To explain the asserted prevalence of “HIV” in sub-Saharan Africa, one has to accept that 20-40% of all sexually active adults have several sexual partners simultaneously and change them frequently enough that, in the course of a year, each has as many as 100 different partners (pp. 64-65 and elsewhere in The AIDS Pandemic).

When I first noted this conundrum, these inexplicable racial differences in testing “HIV-positive”, I had asked the CDC about it; and I had been flabbergasted at their response, that “The ‘characteristic differentiation by race’ that you note is compatible [emphasis in original] with a behavioral explanation” (p. 75 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory). CDC was apparently willing to accept as accurate the traditional racist stereotype of irresponsibly promiscuous sexual behavior by black people.

But it’s not just common sense or politically correct thinking that rejects that stereotype, the latter is demonstrably refuted by actual observations and studies that have found African Americans and Africans are if anything LESS likely than Caucasians to indulge in sexual excesses; I give a few references for that conclusion in chapter 7 of The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory.

Empirically speaking, then, one has the following:
Black people test “HIV-positive” much more often than others, irrespective of region or social or economic factors — irrespective, in other words, of cultural factors.
Black people are not significantly more sexually careless and promiscuous than others.

Therefore, testing “HIV-positive” is not in general the result of sexual behavior.

Why then do black people test “HIV-positive” much more often than others?

As Ruth Benedict pointed out long ago, there is nothing racist about acknowledging that there are physical and physiological differences associated with the generally recognized racial groups; that just reflects that some genes that influence physiology are often associated strongly with some genes that influence hair color, skin color, eye color. The racial disparities in testing “HIV-positive” simply reflect some racial difference in physiology [“Racial disparities in testing ‘HIV-positive’: Is there a non-racist explanation?”, 4 May 2008].

That conclusion entails, of course, that testing “HIV-positive” is not necessarily an indication of infection by the putative “HIV”. That’s well known to AIDS Rethinkers, though it is not part of the conventional wisdom. Still, it’s plain enough from the technical literature, which reports “false positives” from such events as vaccinations and a host of other conditions (Christine Johnson, “Whose antibodies are they anyway? Factors known to cause false  positive  HIV  antibody  test  results”, Continuum 4  [#3,  Sept./Oct. 1996]).

It remains to be explored, what precisely the race-associated physiological factors may be that conduce to testing “HIV-positive”. One was already cited in my book (p. 100), that blacks react more strongly than others to the antigen p24, p24 being one to which “HIV” tests are sensitive (for example, the 4th generation rapid HIV diagnostic test, Determine® HIV 1/2 Ag/Ab Combo, marketed by Inverness Medical for “separate detection of HIV p24 antigen . . . . During HIV infection, the p24 antigen is produced during the first few weeks . . . . excellent sensitivity of 100% for patients at chronic stage of infection and a specificity of . . . 99.66% for. . . HIV-1 p24 antigen”).
Tony Lance has gathered many references that illustrate the connection between intestinal dysbiosis and testing “HIV-positive”, and he has found a host of publications connecting disturbances of the vaginal microflora in women to both pregnancy and testing “HIV-positive” (for example, Shin & Kaul, “Stay It with Flora: Maintaining Vaginal Health as a Possible Avenue for Prevention of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Acquisition”, J. Infect. Dis. 197 [2008] 1355-7). Recently Tony drew to my attention a report of racial disparities in bacterial vaginosis (BV) that run parallel to racial disparities in testing “HIV-positive”:
“Curiously,  the  incidence  of  BV  varies markedly among racial and ethnic groups (Rajamanoharan  et  al.,  1999;  Royce  et  al.,  1999),  ranging from 6% in Asians and 9% in whites, to 16% in Hispanics  and  23%  in  African  Americans.  The reasons for differences in the incidence of BV among racial  groups  are  unknown,  but  they  cannot  be explained  by  differences  in  socio-demographics, sexual  activity,  health  behavior  or  hygiene alone (Goldenberg et al., 1996; Royce et al., 1999)” [emphasis added; Xia Zhou et al., “Differences in the composition of vaginal microbial communities found in healthy Caucasian and black women”, The ISME Journal, 1 [2007] 121-33).
Goldenberg  et al. (1996). “Bacterial colonization of the vagina during pregnancy in four ethnic groups. Vaginal infections and prematurity study group”. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174: 1618-21.
Rajamanoharan et al. (1999). “Bacterial vaginosis, ethnicity, and the use of genital cleaning agents: a case control study”, Sex Transm Dis 26: 404-9.
Royce et al. (1999). “Race/ethnicity, vaginal flora patterns, and pH during pregnancy”, Sex Transm Dis 26: 96-102.

At any rate, there is nothing implausible about racial differences in physiology, and there are reports that connect such racial differences to a greater tendency for testing “HIV-positive” among Africans and African Americans.

That racial differences in testing “HIV-positive” are not the result of differences in behavior is indicated independently and more directly by the manner in which “HIV” tests are calibrated: the calibration itself builds in a racial bias. The “null” reading — “HIV-negative” — is based on “normal controls” who are presumed to be uninfected; and the population from which such controls are drawn are repeat blood donors, since those are routinely screened for a variety of infections and represent people least likely to be “HIV-infected” (Weiss & Cowan, see “HIV” tests are demonstrably invalid, 19 May 2009). But with tests calibrated in this manner — initially in the United States, and all subsequent tests are based on those — it turns out that repeat blood-donors of different racial groups test “positive” at significantly different rates: African-American blood donors tested “HIV-positive” 14 times more often than white American blood donors, and in Africa the ratio was 23 (pp. 51 and 76 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).
Now, blood donated by repeat blood-donors of every race is screened in the same fashion. There is no basis for rejecting repeat blood-donors who are black as inherently more likely to harbor undetected infections. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that “HIV” tests ought to be calibrated separately for every identifiable group in which, using the presently available tests, repeat blood-donors react at a significantly different rate than the overall average. As it stands, however,

“HIV” tests are racially biased
overestimate “HIV infection” among blacks
by a large factor

If tests were calibrated separately for each racial group, the prevalence of “HIV-positive” in sub-Saharan Africa might well turn out to be little if at all different from the prevalence elsewhere. A hint in that direction is that in many countries the rate of “HIV” prevalence among blood donors parallels the overall rate in the country (Sedyaningsih-Marnahil et al., “The use of blood donor data for HIV surveillance purposes. A global perspective”, Int Conf AIDS, 7-12 July 2002; 14: abstract no. WeOrC1268).

The present willingness on the part of HIV/AIDS theorists and the media — thereby inscribed into the conventional wisdom — to accept a behavioral explanation for racial disparities in testing “HIV-positive” illustrates that racist stereotypes about sexual behavior remain deeply albeit subconsciously ingrained, and that such subterranean ideological racism influences interpretations and activities by such agencies as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

24 Responses to “Racist stereotypes are inherent in HIV/AIDS theory”

  1. Philip said

    Interestingly, blacks are also more likely to suffer from autoimmune diseases such as Sarcoidosis. I suddenly recall Rodney Richards postulating that hiv positivity could actually be hypergammaglobinemia, or “too many antibodies to too many things.”

  2. Coincidentally, the Missouri Health Department also reported yesterday that “the number of newly diagnosed HIV cases is more than eight times higher for black people than white people. The disparity is particularly high among black females, which compose 12 percent of Missouri’s population but 69 percent of new HIV cases.”

    Although no official speculation for this dramatic disparity was published, the comments section reveals how much of the public reads the message.

    And the (media) beat goes on…

    • Henry Bauer said

      Jonathan Barnett: Thanks for the heads-up. I contributed the comment,
      “The HIV tests are prone to false positives, and the way they are calibrated makes them racially biased; see “Racist stereotypes are inherent in HIV/AIDS theory” at

      • Henry,

        The local “alternative media” is acting their role of orthodox foot-soldiers by war-drumming these fear-based reports without question.

        My comment here was not as succinct as yours, but I did include a link to this article.

        Thanks for the wealth of information you provide on your blog for those folks who can’t afford or for whatever reason won’t buy your book.

  3. Tony Lance said


    Hypergammaglobulinemia is also considered to be a hallmark of “HIV infection”.

  4. cathy said

    Well here in NZ we don’t even need ELISA or WB to ensure “HIV” testing is racially biased; not one but two infectious diseases specialists are so talented and omniscient that they didn’t need such ornamental procedures — just being of African extraction and having had recent weight-loss was sufficient for them. Each pointed a finger (literally, not metaphorically) at the same individual (on different occasions and in different cities) and pronounced he “had AIDS” and would be dead within a year, and 18 months, respectively. A subsequent ELISA was negative (fortunately for this individual) but no apology was forthcoming from these “highly professional” experts. I personally would have reported these dangerous buffoons to the Medical Council.

  5. Cal Crilly said

    Black folk cross react with the very racist HIV test because antibodies to HLA-DR genes cross react with the p24 HIV core antigen.
    This means that Africans who have more HLA-DR genes to begin with and have autoimmune disease or antibodies to HLA-DR after pregnancy will seem to be HIV+.

  6. Jim said

    Dr. Bauer,

    Are there any stats available on incarceration rates by race under the various state laws against sexual contact by “HIV” positive people with others. Also, are any “HIV” + prisioners required or forced to injest ARV’s once they are imprisioned?

    • Henry Bauer said

      I just don’t know about either of those. They’re good and interesting issues, and I hope some readers of the blog may have relevant info to share with us.

  7. David Jackson said

    As a layman who has spent much time in Africa, I question the theory of “false positives” in HIV testing, simply on the basis that full-blown AIDS in Africa is of epidemic proportions and many times higher than anywhere else in the world.

    This can only be either a genetic predisposition towards the virus or some behavioural trait. I favour the former, although AIDS only has a limited number of transmission vehicles, all of which fall into the “blood-to-blood” category, ie. sexual contact, shared needles etc….., so it would be easy to conclude that some behavioral cause must exist. As for what, we can only speculate.

    I feel I need to add, to counter any accusations of racial bias on my part, that I am a black male of African ancestry, albeit some generations back, to whom the AIDS epidemic in Africa is a disaster on a scale which the world has seldom seen and it is a disgrace that the world at large has done so little to help halt this menace. Meanwhile the drugs industry is rubbing its hands with glee and making a fortune out of it.

    • Henry Bauer said

      David Jackson:
      “full-blown AIDS” in Africa may have nothing at all to do with HIV, or with AIDS anywhere else. TB, malaria and other endemic diseases fit the Bangui definition for “AIDS”, which does not require an HIV+ test.
      My book cites a number of sources to support the hypothesis that genes linked to African ancestry make testing “HIV+” more likely.
      There is no doubt that Africans test HIV+ significantly more often than others, by something like an order of magnitude. One can choose to interpret that either as reflecting genetically programmed promiscuity or as a glitch in the tests. The latter seems to me the more rational explanation and better grounded in independent evidence about sexual behavior. Mainstream HIV/AIDS devotees, however, ascribe it to sexual promiscuity. Since that runs counter to evidence, I think it reflects a subterranean racism.

    • Edward Kamau said

      David Jackson:
      What parts of Africa are you speaking off when you say “full-blown AIDS in Africa is of epidemic proportions and many times higher than anywhere else in the world”? And what leads you to the conclusion that what you observed is actually AIDS? i.e not just TB, even diabetes etc. My experience is that anecdotal stories of vast numbers of villages, whole families etc dying from AIDS are largely unfounded.


    • BornSkeptic said

      “As a layman who has spent much time in Africa”

      Hmmmmm, is this supposed to mean something? if you “Spent much time in Antarctica” would you also inherently know something about the life habits of emperor penguins?

      I think what your statement says most is that you have internalized the self-hate and propaganda of the HIV=AIDS=DEATH fear mongers.

      Question: if you have “Spent much time in Africa” do you agree that the people in SOME African nations have dozens of sexual partners per year, as this would seem to be the only explanation for the supposed rates of ‘HIV” in SOME African nations?

  8. africanblackmilitant said

    To be honest you can hardly discuss the AIDS epidemic in Africa with racism being in the room. The black they say is “Black Promiscuity”, despite the fact that few AIDS infections in Africa even come from sexual contact, and most are from unsanitary medical procedures, transfusions and injections, indicates the depths of your stereotypes. Likewise, the fact that sub-Saharan Africans would be especially susceptible to AIDS thanks to having immune systems already compromised by poverty, secondary infections, unclean water and other epidemiological issues, independent of rates of sexual activity, seems not to occur to many whites either.

    • Tony said

      The main-stream orthodox argument is that AIDS is based upon HIV, a sexually transmitted disease. When I (and others) suggest alternative theories, such as poverty, co-factors (“secondary infections,”) exploitative work conditions (e.g., diamond mines in South Africa,) unclean water, inadequate nutrition, etc., they are rejected because HIV is a “sexually transmitted disease.” Indeed, the very racist nature of this characterization and the epidemic in Africa argues very strongly for the ridiculous characterization of HIV as an STI (and AIDS as being caused by it.) What seems far more likely is that AIDS is a syndrome of malnutrition, a position that seems to be supported by Montagnier (his pronouncements in HON, for example) as well as the Intestional Dysbiosis theory (that explains the origin of said acquired malnutrition in gay men, and is caused by damage to the GI tract.) Or in other words, we’re poisoning ourselves, whether it is through pharmaceuticals, malnutrition, inhuman working conditions, industrial waste products injected into our food and water, or other unsafe steps. I’d recommend reading Nancy Turner Banks’ book “Aids, Opium, Diamonds and Empire” if you want to see an alternative theory that has everything to do with exploitation (including via racism) and nothing to do with sexual conduct or sexually transmitted diseases.

  9. Francis said

    I oft hear the term Paradigm when referring to HIV/AIDS. This in itself is a misnomer as the more correct wording should be Paradox. As for the protectors of the paradox their arguments are based on Formal Fallacies (Google ’em).

    One of the largest of the paradoxical conclusions stems from HIV being a sexually transmitted infection. As HIV incidence is highest in the poorest nations with negroid genetics, the formal fallacy is that they must be behaving in a sexually irresponsible manner. It would appear from the high priests of AIDSDOM that indeed the poorest people on the planet are engaging in the most promiscuous sex imaginable. Whilst the richest amongst the planet are remaining either faithful, abstinent or wrapped in latex.

    According to AVERT, the highest incidence of HIV infection in the world is in Sub-Saharan Africa at 5.2% (overall), the lowest is in East Asia at ~0.1%, paradoxically East Asia has the highest population density on the planet with 1.4 billion inhabitants, they must surely go out of their way to avoid each other. Whereas Africans search wide and far for their sexual conquests. And of course their sexual behaviour must be aberrant to sustain the epidemic.

    A more compelling argument, as Henry has pointed out, is the genetic differences in those two races being responsible for the differential. Proofs of this can be found in the Kalahari, which is in Sub-Saharan Africa and the indigenous population has a very low HIV incidence, they are also genetically distinct from the negroids. There is also a genetic difference with “Saharan” Africans, which accounts for their low incidence.

    As for “AIDS&” Deaths. I live in Australia, unknown to most, we have the lowest average life expectancy of any indigenous population on the planet. The average aboriginal lives 17 years less than their white counterparts here. TB and all sorts of nasty, chronic, real diseases are endemic in their population. Perhaps the only fortunate thing in their favour is that due to their genetics, they test HIV positive at very low rates. Because of this no one can hide behind a “Mythical Disease” and it is officially recognised that poverty, poor nutrition and lack of adequate health services are the leading causes of this disparity. No one does much about it, no one much cares in truth and the status quo remains. At least they don’t have a bevy of weirdo Irish Rock Stars or Black Talk Show Hosts attempting to push their sponsors’ toxic drugs down their throats.

    Raciscm? No, Genocide is a more accurate term.

  10. Gorky said

    Sorry this is a bit overlong but given the complex subject matter, somewhat unavoidable..

    The blather about promiscuous behavioural factors is widespread and routine among AIDS “experts” and activists in their analyses of African AIDS ie high promiscuity among the black populace is perceived as driving the high ‘HIV’ infection rates in Africa and Southern Africa in particular whilst white people have very low ‘HIV’ prevalence because they are presumably far less promiscuous. Former SA president Thabo Mbeki made several references to this anti-black racist stereotype as a driving factor in AIDS hysterics in SA. See his Castro Hlongwane document for one. I find these references to the ‘promiscuous African native who lacks the white man’s propriety and self-control’ all over the place in researching the orthodox literature on AIDS in Africa, without even actively seeking it out. It is an age-old racist stereotype dating to the European slavery of Africans and rooted in it: the black man as primal, dangerous, closer to the animal, more sexual as an animal, lacking the refined sensibilities, self-control and intellectual gifts of the superior European.

    Focusing on South Africa and Africa: There are so many cruel ironies at work here, that whilst well-known to AIDS dissidents need to be further fleshed out and given more attention. Firstly it is the so-called liberals in South Africa and North America, the so-called progressives who profess to be non-racist and anti-racist who are at the forefront, the most relentles and active in steamrolling the anti-black prejudiced HIV/AIDS cult. The same progressives who fought against apartheid in South Africa and often paid a considerable price for it (eg Achmat, Mandela himself, Tutu and others) are the ones making the biggest noise about ‘treating’ poor black people with deadly cytopathic toxins to rid them of the deadly sex germ they are apparently infected with, yet that largely leaves the lilly white people and Indian population in SA alone. These self-same people (most obvious with the South African TAC, trade unions and the leftwing media) are thus at the forefront, at the crest of the wave, of a deadly, sinister and pervasive racist cult in the Western world; nothing less than an unprecedented iatrogenic ethnocide/pogrom against the demographic that has already suffered the most under apartheid.

    In this way the Left in South Africa and the radical Left inclusive of the umbrella trade union movement COSATU (and the TAC is entirely Left/radical Left) are united in their ensnarement in the anti-black prejudiced HIV/AIDS pseudoscientific blunder with the reactionary honestly racist anti-black far-right white community in South Africa nostalgic for apartheid and having their own nakedly racist motivation to believe that a demon sex virus is killing off black people. It’s the far right-wing white racist fantasy made palatable because it’s a demon virus killing off the black people like the plague but leaves the allegedly upright sexually staid white folk alone, unless they are gay men of course. By projecting their deep-seated racist genocidal fantasy onto the invisible demon ‘virus’ they absolve themselves of personal responsibility for their own sinister and deeply racist mindsets and any accompanying guilt. ‘It’s the virus that’s killing the black folk, it has nothing to do with how we feel about blacks’ is the absolution.

    Taking into account the above, I do think that the anti-black prejudice re sexual promiscuity justifying and rationalising the dubious anamolies in ‘HIV’ infection rate figures along with the racist belief that Africans contracted the virus from monkeys is just that, mere rationalisations. It is not the driving factor in selling the racist HIV/AIDS construct in Africa and South Africa in particular, it is the ad hoc rationalisation. The driving factor I believe is a far more sinister albeit related racism than the racist belief that black people cannot restrain their sexual impulses, albeit this driving factor is unconscious. As Bauer points out there is no conspiracy, we are dealing with true believers caught up in subjective validations. A racist construct can only be justified by racist ‘reasoning’. This central motive relates perhaps to an un unconscious revenge for the perceived loss of power post-apartheid by reactionary whites and their fears for their long-term future in SA. In other words the HIV plague decimating the black populace is a racist white dream come true. Among whites this racism appears as pervasive as it was under apartheid (as a little research reveals despite naive dreamy notions about the ‘rainbow nation’). The tension between black and white remains (partially motivated by deep-seated guilt over the legacy of apartheid and colonialism), its dynamics have merely been transformed, but this distracts from my main points so I leave off here.

    There is a return of the repressed racism among the white populace, a displacement into the HIV/AIDS fiasco, repressed since such racism is no longer accepted in respectable society and can no longer be sanctioned or channelled by apartheid laws that have been scrapped and likewise European colonialism in Africa is part of a bygone age. This racism did not go away merely because the laws in SA have changed or the Europeans abandoned their African colonies. What happened in SA was the result of realpolitik more than anything else, as with the collapse of the European empires in Africa and elsewhere, bankrupted in multiple ways by the two world wars. It was not so much a change of heart in attitude to native Africans in other words by the West so much as historical inevitabilities that led to the abandonment of European colonialism in Africa. This new racism – or old racism in a new guise – that is the HIV/AIDS construct is made palatable and respectable because it is hidden by the veneer and jargon of Big Science. Also as AIDS dissidents have pointed out, by blaming a virus for indigence related illnesses, this absolves society from addressing African poverty and acknowledging the deep-seated and pervasive injustices in African society (and South African society) that remain firmly entrenched. It makes it easier to turn a blind eye to poverty and its real roots and perpetuate the every-man-for-himself economic culture in which South Africa notably remains embedded. In this regard the ANC government and those with power and influence including the wealthy and upper-middle classes have a short-term selfish interest at least in scapegoating a demon virus for SA’s indigence. It lets the ANC and the upper echelons of SA society as a whole off the hook in perpetuating the status quo, and the all-round failure in addressing the urgent poverty in SA (there are contradictions with Mbeki and his presidency in this regard that have not been readily acknowledged by AIDS dissidents but that’s a whole other thing..) and elsewhere in Africa. There are of course other dynamics at work here, but I leave off.

    However this all leaves one big question begging: Why is the SA “anti-racist” Left *sarc* suckered by a pseudoscientific anti-black racist cult (and the putatively anti-racist North American and Western Left) and indeed why does it lead the way here in promoting HIV/AIDS hysterics, and why do black people in Africa go along with it in the main? As far as I know this has not been adequately addressed and fleshed out even by SA AIDS dissidents and goes beyond the themes covered by the impressive must-read writings of the likes of Charles Geshekter, Richard and Rosalind Chirimuuta (see their pieces at virusmyth), Helen Lauer and others.

    I do have my own ideas in this regard and it has to do with answering the question – what makes the likes of the SA TAC and their allies tick? The answer as I perceive it tackles several taboos. Naturally the TAC themselves and those like mindless are oblivious to their fanaticism and delusions, as with all true believers. These taboos that I feel need to be tackled in addressing the Left’s blind hysterical sustenance and backing of the racist HIV/AIDS fiasco – going beyond their naive trust in Big Science – naturally gets into heavy psychology and sociology/cultural dynamics, as well as a deep understanding of the contradictions and dynamics of the very broad South African Left (inclusive of wealthy white bourgeoisie and all the attendant hypocrisies here and the militant black communists) under the apartheid era and the attendant tragic history in this respect; and pertinently the SA Left’s confusion in the post-apartheid era. It deserves book-length treatment – since the unconscious dynamics of the Western Left’s and the South African Left’s destructive tendencies in this regard are several and multi-layered – and so I can’t go into it here even if I had the time. A comment on a blog is not the place for it neither. My point though is it has yet to be expanded on, deeply and thoroughly.

    PS I have no political or ideological axe to grind being an apolitical centrist.

    • Henry Bauer said

      You really should practice being more concise. Your points about how political correctness (the Left, in your terms) actually promotes racist attitudes are well taken. But I doubt that many people will read everything in your post, it gets repetitive and overly emphatic and overly general. One could just point out that actual studies of black and white sexuality find whites in Africa more prone to infection by STDs than blacks, as documented in my book; that disproves the racist stereotype. But HIV/AIDS theory demands a behavioral-sexual explanation, so ingrained subconscious racism comes along to help, thereby strengthening and perpetuating prejudiced racist attitudes.
      The answer to your question has many parts. The root is that HIV/AIDS belief was implanted officially and strongly by the Heckler-Gallo press conference and the consequent funding monopoly for that theory. Africans of all sorts benefited from going along with this because of the funding that activist groups and “AIDS” victims and “orphans” derive from countless sources, and that activist groups derive from drug companies. There are no comparable incentives to question the theory. We dissidents are largely academic types who only know how to write and argue, not how to engage in politically influential activities. How the latter could brign change is being illustrated by Clark Baker and the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice.

      • Gorky said

        Prof Bauer

        I think you misunderstand me somewhat. Also what I’m alluding to goes beyond the naive trust and mere echoing of Big Science, as I write above. There are ideological and cultural factors especially in Southern Africa that are pertinent here. One cannot be “concise” about something that is staggeringly complex.

        One also needs to get the South African cultural zeitgeist and I don’t think many AIDS dissidents in New York, Toronto, London and Europe etc do so. I am aware of C Baker’s admirable work in LA, yet this has no bearing on the cultural factors I allude to. Of course the answer to my question has many parts but it is nowhere addressed, assertions by others to the contrary.

    • Edward Kamau said

      Too true!
      The problem with HIV/AIDS dissidence is that it sees HIV/AIDS as primarily a scientific blunder and attacks it as such. HIV/AIDS is really a socio-political-economic, and in the case of Africa, geopolitical issue.

      AIDS is really about control, in Africa it is about neocolonial control of African societies that is so complete it enters even into the bedroom. The fruits of such control are economic, political and psychological and are enjoyed by western society in general and its dominant coalitions in particular. Just as 500 years ago the west subjugated Africa in the name of civilizing and saving Africans and their souls, today the west subjugates Africa in the name of saving it from disease, dictators, and destitution.

      For the African supporters and enablers of HIV/AIDS, Population Control, Structural Adjustment and the other schemes of political control imposed on Africa by the west, its all about money and power. They become the privileged agents of the most powerful coalitions in the world, with all the pomp, ceremony, wealth and power that comes with that.


  11. Jim said

    Gorky/Kamau put a finger on the economic, political and psychological features that give this politicized scientific blunder so much staying power. It’s like a “perfect storm”. This is augmented by the fact that many of the “we dissidents” seem unwilling to stay on point pursuing the “scientific” blunder at its root, “HIV”. If HIV exists only as a named, virtual, or speculated virus, what sense does it make to dwell on drugs, tests and statistics? Logically, if HIV=BS then everthing HIV is BS. This is not to say that that all the human activities, both scientific and cultural, that served to launch and perpetuate this myth are not fascinating studies in their own right.

  12. Rav said

    “CDC was apparently willing to accept as accurate the traditional racist stereotype of irresponsibly promiscuous sexual behavior by black people… refuted by actual observations and studies that have found African Americans and Africans are if anything LESS likely than Caucasians to indulge in sexual excesses”

    Does your chapter on Racism reference the actual CDC data? Also, how exactly are you defining sexual excess? From what I’ve researched, the numbers of lifetime opposite-sex partners reflect greater promiscuity and illegitimacy rates among African Americans.

    Here is a 3-way contingency table from the 2006-08 NSFG survey (Recoded variables are based on HISPRACE and LIFPRTNR):

    Rows: 1 = Hispanic, 2 = White, 3 = Black, 4 = Other Race
    Columns: 1 = 0 partners, 2 = 1 partner, 3 = 2 to 3 partners, 4 = 4 to 6 partners, 5 = 7 to 14 partners, 6 = 15 or more partners


    1 2 3 4 5 6
    1 208 497 436 244 148 80
    2 574 633 682 881 720 379
    3 162 139 272 404 310 161
    4 83 137 90 60 33 23


    1 2 3 4 5 6
    1 212 193 261 287 196 260
    2 589 426 457 614 567 650
    3 126 66 139 195 175 291
    4 117 97 71 49 37 64

    N = 13495, Data set at .

    The latest evidence here shows blacks and especially black men as more likely to be promiscuous, although you could say Hispanics are less likely than whites. Regardless of safer sex practices… Compare with the Estimated Rates of New HIV Infections by Race/Ethnicity and Gender, 2006 chart .

    There is a measurement in the CDC data for HIV testing experience in and outside of blood donations that could be useful to study too.

    • Henry Bauer said

      How are you reading these tables? The median score on lifetime partners is between 3 and 4 for both whites and blacks, only fractionally higher for blacks; and one would need much more information to be able to convert this into some measure of promiscuity—information about rates of divorce and widowing, for example.
      My whole book, not only the chapters on racial matters, cites all then-available CDC data plus data from the peer-reviewed mainstream literature, and there are several citations to mainstream sources reporting blacks less carelessly promiscuous than whites, in Africa as well as in the USA. In my view, the data I cite are more comprehensive than this survey of 13,000 people; and I’m particularly skeptical of the accuracy of self-reported sexual behavior.

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