HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

GAYnocide in San Francisco

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/04/04

In “Predicting rates of ‘HIV-positive’ — and racial cleansing” (2010/03/14), I pointed out that Washington DC was setting out on an unwitting campaign of racial cleansing: testing everyone for HIV and administering toxic drugs to all “HIV-positive” people, irrespective of their state of health, would lead to a disproportionate number of African Americans being killed by the toxic drugs, since black people test “HIV-positive” far more often than others.

Now San Francisco is setting out to cleanse itself of gay men in the same manner:
“City endorses new policy for treatment of H.I.V.” (2 April 2010, Sabin Russell)

“San Francisco public health doctors have begun to advise patients to start taking antiviral medicines as soon as they are found to be infected . . . . The new, controversial city guidelines, to be announced next week by the Department of Public Health, may be the most forceful anywhere in their endorsement of early treatment against H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS. . . . Behind the policy switch is mounting evidence that patients who start early are more likely to live longer, and less likely to suffer a variety of ailments — including heart disease, kidney failure and cancer — that plague long-term survivors.”
As I’ve pointed out before, perfectly healthy people take longer to be killed by toxic drugs than people who are already ill. Testing “HIV-positive” can result from a huge variety of different conditions. Among gay men, one prominent cause may be the practice of rectal douching, which can damage the intestinal microflora that constitute a significant arm of the immune system, acting in particular to control fungal infections — see Tony Lance’s hypothesis of intestinal dysbiosis and his presentation at RA 2009, now available in video format (most conveniently on YouTube).
People who test “HIV-positive” AND have symptoms of illness are surely less healthy than people who test “HIV-positive” and do NOT have symptoms of illness. Up to now, therefore, the less healthy people are, the more immediately they have been put on antiretroviral treatment, and therefore they have died sooner from the drugs’ “side” effects than those who start HAART while they are more healthy. We already know that the majority of adverse events among people on HAART are “non-AIDS” events — “side” effects of the treatment that result in organ failure
[NIH Treatment Guidelines, 29 January 2008, p. 13; ; p. 21, November 2008].

The first thing that any “HIV-positive” person should do
is to try to discover WHY they are testing “HIV-positive”:

Have they recently taken antibiotics? Have they recently had surgery? Been pregnant? Had an anti-tetanus shot? A flu shot? Do they eat healthily and eschew douching? And so on. Almost any unusual physical condition appears able sometimes to stimulate a positive “HIV” test — certainly the use of “recreational” drugs and thereby probably the intake of significant amounts of other drugs as well.

The “variety of ailments — including heart disease, kidney failure and cancer — that plague long-term survivors” do NOT plague long-term non-progressors. Those adverse events were never suffered by AIDS patients in the 1980s, that has happened only since the introduction of antiretroviral drugs. Those ailments — “non-AIDS events” as the NIH Treatment Guidelines classes them — plague long-term HAART-treated “survivors”.

“Studies suggest that in the early years of infection, when a patient may show few signs of immune system failure, the virus is in fact causing permanent damage that becomes evident later.”
“Studies suggest” that only because it is assumed, without any direct evidence, that “HIV” somehow damages every cell in the body — magically, since it has never been found in any cells to any significant degree. Demonstrably “infected” people’s CD4 cells, the purported primary target, are “infected” at a rate of much less than 1%, after all (references cited at p. 176 in Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus).

“For instance, in older patients who finally start taking the drugs, the effects of chronic inflammation take their toll.”
Re “older”: Bear in mind that everything about HIV/AIDS is at a maximum in early middle age, 35-50. There is no indication at all of the postulated latent period, and the mortality of PWAs (People With AIDS) does not increase with age, even as mortality from every other known cause increases dramatically with age above the middle years. In 2004, for example, the mortality of PWAs ≥65 was 1.8% whereas that at ages 25-34 was 1.7%, at 35-44 3.2%, at 45-54 3.8%, and at 55-64 2.6% [How “AIDS Deaths” and “HIV Infections” Vary with Age — and WHY, 15 September 2008; HAART saves lives — but doesn’t prolong them!?, 17 September 2008;  No HIV “latent period”: dotting i’s and crossing t’s, 21 September 2008; Living with HIV; Dying from What?, 10 December 2008]
The “chronic inflammation” is a pure guess. Since it has never been discovered just how “HIV” supposedly kills the immune system, a popular guess nowadays is that it must cause chronic inflammation, chronic stimulation of the immune system, which then by some unknown mechanism destroys itself — even though an earlier speculation that AIDS is an autoimmune disease turned out to be wrong. The logic of “chronic inflammation” is analogous to the invention of the term “immune restoration syndrome” to describe the finding that recovery of CD4 counts and diminution of “viral load” was often accompanied by severe illness or death on the part of the fortunate patient whose treatment had been so successful.
Bear in mind, too, that these speculations about chronic inflammation and the like are largely based on observation of HAART-treated individuals, or at least individuals who are not only “HIV-positive” but also in poor health, because most healthy untreated “HIV-positive” individuals are not being monitored. Long-term non-progressors or elite controllers have remained perfectly healthy for as long as a quarter century while “HIV-positive”, and since they are healthy, their existence as “HIV-positive” has never come to official attention. By contrast, it is beginning to be noticed that HAART produces premature aging
[“Another kind of AIDS crisis”, David France, 2009/11/01].

“Dr. Diane V. Havlir, chief of the H.I.V./AIDS division at San Francisco General Hospital, said the new policy was already in effect for her patients. Although a decision whether or not to take the medicine rests with the patient, all those testing positive for H.I.V. will be offered combination therapy, with advice to pursue it.”
How many of her patients have had the opportunity to hear the reasons offered by Rethinkers for not starting HAART?

“The turning point in San Francisco’s thinking may have been a study in The New England Journal of Medicine on April 1, 2009, that . . . found that patients who put off therapy until their immune system showed signs of damage had a nearly twofold greater risk of dying — from any cause — than those who started treatment when their T-cell counts were above 500.”
Exactly. Those who were ill “from any cause” when they started HAART were twice as likely to die as those who were not ill when they started taking the toxic drugs. What a surprise!

“When the first combinations of AIDS drugs came out in 1996, the thinking was ‘hit early, and hit hard.’ But as patients battled nasty side effects, like diarrhea and disfiguring shifts in body fat, therapy was deferred until T-cell counts fell as low as 200. Today, with safer drugs, quick viral suppression is back in fashion.”
“Safer” drugs does not mean safe, of course. Just read the NIH Treatment Guidelines.

“The field is moving, inexorably, to earlier and earlier therapy,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes for Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He called San Francisco’s decision “an important step in that direction.”
Connoisseurs of bureaucratese will recognize the passive voice of “The field is moving, inexorably” as the typical maneuver designed to disclaim responsibility for decisions being made or influenced by the person who deploys the passive-voice statement. “Mistakes were made” is a common enough example; they just happen, no one committed them.
And this “inexorable” move is actually opposed by some highly qualified HIV/AIDS experts like “Jay Levy, the U.C.S.F. virologist who was among the first to identify the cause of AIDS”, who commented that “It’s just too risky”; “The new drugs may be less toxic, . . . but no one knows the effects of taking them for decades”.
“San Francisco’s decision follows a split vote in December by a 38-member federal panel on treatment guidelines. Only half of the H.I.V. experts gathered by the Department of Health and Human Services favored starting drugs in patients with healthy levels of more than 500 T-cells. . . . The risks of early treatment — giving powerful drugs to people at low risk of disease — could outweigh the ‘modest predicted benefit’ . . . . Dr. Lisa C. Capaldini, who runs an AIDS practice in the Castro district, also has strong reservations. . . . [Although] today’s drugs are a vast improvement over earlier therapies, the program, she said ‘is not ready for prime time.’”

But San Francisco pushes ahead,
“advising” everyone to get tested
and “advising” all “HIV-positive” people
to start treatment immediately,
thereby preparing for
genocide of gay men in San Francisco
to accompany
genocide of African Americans in Washington DC

9 Responses to “GAYnocide in San Francisco”

  1. mo79uk said

    Is it possible that this inexorable treatment could be offered as a preventative in absence of an alleged vaccine? That would make my skin crawl. Then you get your epidemic.

    Just want to add, diverging off topic a bit, that, someone I know received unfiltered blood in Ireland during the early 1980s which resulted in the 1999 resulted in the 1999 Lindsay Tribunal.
    A lot of people did get ill from the blood, in fact the person I know got hepatitis and recovered from it, but as far as I know too, the only people to have tested HIV+ were haemophiliacs. And indeed, it was only really HIV in this group that got the media’s attention.
    No one thought it strange, that perhaps no one without haemophilia tested HIV+ (or if they did, it was a fleeting false positive, post-transfusion).
    The media focus on this was equivalent to PCR.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Your skin should certainly be crawling. The Washington DC experiment is being done to cut “transmission”, since people with low “viral load” are supposed to be less likely to pass it on. In San Francisco one of the gurus ventured that this would be an additional benefit of immediate “treatment”. Somewhere in Africa, can’t find the reference just now, they are in fact having a trial to see whether ARVs can prevent infection . . . .
      It’s impossible to satirize the mainstream HIV/AIDS people.

  2. Thank you for dissecting this report so competently and assertively, Henry.

    As an early ACT-UP leader in Kansas City, I must accept a certain amount of responsibility for helping create the conditions that make a move like this possible. We demonstrated and demanded faster access to drugs.

    As a gay man with a “positive” diagnosis, I now feel personally responsible to try to undo some of the damage already done.

    As difficult as it was to demand “action” in the Reagan years, that work was nothing compared to what is required now. What I didn’t know then was how thoroughly the AIDS activist movement would be co-opted by Pharma.

    Some of the most influential leaders of ACT-UP more than a decade ago, such as Peter Staley, are now making a comfortable living hawking these drugs online (


    • Henry Bauer said

      Jonathan Barnett:
      You had no reason in those years not to trust what the experts were saying. I think HIV/AIDS is actually without precedent. There have been lots of mistakes in science and medicine over the centuries, but nothing approaching the magnitude of this one in terms of the numbers of people severely harmed and in the range of powerful interests that have become vested in the status quo.

  3. Ramsey said

    Check out “How the Chronicle Invented AIDS” — this newspaper has done more to fan the flames of hysteria than any other publication. How I will dance if the San Francisco Chronicle goes under… This is the newspaper of William Randolph Hearst, the most repulsive man who ever lived, may he rot in hell forever.

  4. realpc920 said

    You have made an excellent point — of course people who are healthier when they start the drugs will have a long survival time that those who start when they’re already very sick. How could it be otherwise? Medical researchers in some other fields are aware of lead-time bias and over diagnosis. Why haven’t the AIDS researchers heard of it?

    The drugs are obviously lethal. Yet they convince themselves the new drugs are safe, merely because they are not quite as deadly as the older drugs.

  5. Francis said

    This has the ominous smell of some serious Pharma lobbying behind the scenes. First Washington, now San Francisco. No doubt a domino effect is taking place. What baffles me is how such a public health decision could have been made with a 50/50 split on the federal panel, someone must have made the final decision, and with that particular split it is akin to the toss of a coin odds. Interestingly some of the experts have denounced the move, they are sure to be silenced soon. How Fauci can say that it is trending that way with a straight face reminds me of the soldiers that were tried at Nuremburg for war crimes and used the defence of simply following orders. It didn’t work then and ultimately wont work in this instance either.

    The quaint anecdote at the end of the article about not waiting to call the fire department when a room is on fire is quite true. However you don’t get them to kick in the doors and hose down the whole house to save one room either.

    On the up side it can only hasten the demise of the HIV/AIDS paradigm, but at what cost in the interim? A tragedy in the making and all too reminiscent of David Ho’s hit hard hit early strategy that failed badly and cost so many lives.

    When will they learn?

  6. Francis said

    Hi Henry.

    Watched an interesting Doco last night on the effects of chronic stress. A while back Philip commented on HIV positives having shortened Telomeres. Telomeres are a kind of end cap on the DNA strands that protect them from fraying. Shortening of the Telomeres is a natural process in ageing. HIV advocates have speculated that the virus causes this accellerated ageing process leading to DNA damage, disease etc. A Dr Elizabeth Blackburn (recent Nobel Laurelist) has been researching the effects of chronic stress on Telomeres and specifically in a group of mothers who care for disabled children and suffer unrelenting stress in their lives. What she has found is that the cumulative effect of this stress is to accellerate the rate of Telomere shortening. The results are that for every year of this stress the Telomeres shorten at the rate of 6 years of ageing. It is not all grim though: if the stress is alleviated, and one of the best methods is laughter, the Telomeres have the capacity to repair themselves.

    In regard to ulcers, which for many years were thought to be caused by stress. In the ’80s some Australians discovered a bacteria, H. pylori that was found to be the pathogenic cause for gastric ulcers and they recieved a Nobel Prize for that. Recent research has found that 2/3 of the population have H. pylori in their gut and most don’t get ulcers. What has now been found is that sustained chronic stress interferes with the gut’s ability to maintain a healthy mucosal lining. Therefore stressed people suffer defects in this lining allowing invasion of the bacteria. It’s not a big stretch to say that stress would aggravate any intestinal dysbiosis caused through other means.

    Stess was also studied in a wild baboon society that contracted TB in Africa. The predominant victims of the disease within that population were all found to be the Alpha males who were daily subjected to chronic stress within that community. The females and less stressed males were left untouched. Marked immune suppression was found in those that eventually died (but no SIV).

    A further study is being conducted in Holland with regards to the victims of wartime famine in 1944. It has been shown that the children born from parents subjected to this chronic stress were 60 years later still suffering physiological and psychological damage.

    I’d think — and it has been stated before — that the fast-lane lifestyle and malnutrition are and were stressful. And I cannot think of anything more stressful than an HIV diagnosis which is perceived as a virtual death sentence. Just going on Blackburn’s figures, if diagnosed with HIV and living out the 10-year latency under chronic stress, your DNA would have aged the equivalent of 60 years, your stomach and gut lining would have dissolved and immune function dropped markedly, all without the help of a virus.

  7. Gorky said

    It’s not only in the States where the AIDS insanity is picking up the pace at this EXACT time.
    ‘South Africa takes big step forward towards universal HIV testing’

    Horrifying, check the most recent link as well. Words fail me.

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: