HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Archive for June, 2010

Racial bias in HIV/AIDS

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/06/14

I’ve drawn attention several times and from a variety of evidence to the racial bias in HIV/AIDS  (see some representative links below). Perhaps the most egregious example is the willingness to presume or postulate that black people are so much more sexually promiscuous than others that they are “infected by HIV” much more often: African-American men about 7 times as often as white American men and 10 times as often as Asian-American men; African -American women about 20 times as often as white American women and perhaps 50 times as often as Asian-American women; Africans in South Africa >20 times as often as white South Africans or South Africans of (Asian) Indian ancestry. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are willing to regard these differences in “HIV infection” rates as stemming from behavioral differences. James Chin calculates and accepts that 20-40% of adult Africans have about a dozen sexual partners at any given time, changing them about annually. Not only does the HIV/AIDS mainstream accept a sexual-transmission explanation for these racial disparities, it does so even though the disparities as to “HIV infection” are seen in every social sector and have not changed over 25 years, whereas relative rates for gonorrhea and syphilis vary by social sector and change over time, not at all parallel with relative rates of “HIV-positive”.

The manner in which “HIV” tests are calibrated explains why blacks test “HIV-positive” so much more often than others. Repeat blood donors are used as purportedly uninfected controls to standardize “HIV” tests, but when thus-calibrated tests are then put into practice, black repeat donors test “HIV-positive” far more often than other repeat donors, just as blacks in general test positive that much more often than others in general. Were the tests calibrated separately for racial sub-groups, the differences in apparent “HIV infection” would disappear.

Recently it was pointed out to me that one of the data sets in my book offers yet another angle on this, one I had earlier overlooked. Table 28 records the change in black-to-white ratio of AIDS cases over the years, from 0.20 in 1981 to 1.32 by 1998 — even as the black-to-white ratio for “HIV infection” has shown no increasing trend at all. What I ought to have pointed out as well is that the black-to-white ratio of AIDS in 1981 corresponded roughly to the relative proportions of black and white people in the United States. That was the beginning of the AIDS era, when most of the cases described as AIDS were among gay men, and it would be hardly surprising to find the same proportion of black and white among gay men as among men in general (or in the population at large). By 1984, however, when drug addicts were being classed as AIDS cases (rather than as, up to then, simply as ill from the consequences of drug addiction), the black-to-white ratio for “AIDS” had doubled (to about 0.43), consistent with the higher rates of drug abuse among inner-city black Americans. It was only after “HIV-positive” became a criterion for an AIDS diagnosis that “HIV/AIDS” became, in the United States, a disease largely of black communities.

For some other discussions of how HIV/AIDS researchers exhibit conscious or unconscious racial bias, indeed racist beliefs, see:
World Aids Day: Sharon Stone on Larry King, sharing urban legends (or celebrity facts);
“HIV Disease”;
HIV: The virus that discriminates by race;
HIV: A race-discriminating sexually transmitted virus!
Deconstructing HIV/AIDS in “Sub-Saharan Africa” and “The Caribbean”;
Racial disparities in testing “HIV-positive”: Is there a non-racist explanation?
HIV/AIDS theory is inescapably racist;
Race and sexual behavior: Stereotype vs. fact;
Anthony Fauci explains racial disparities in “HIV/AIDS”;
Mainstream duffers clutch at Duffy straws: African ancestry and HIV;
Collateral damage from HIV/AIDS;
Least susceptible = most affected?! More HIV/AIDS nonsense;
Racist stereotypes are inherent in HIV/AIDS theory;
Double-talk about multiple concurrent sexual relationships;
Predicting rates of “HIV-positive” — and racial cleansing.

Posted in HIV and race, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV/AIDS numbers, sexual transmission | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

What numbers mean: 50% of “HIV-positives” are long-term non-progressors

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/06/04

Numbers may seem like indisputable facts, but as with other “facts”, what matters is their significance, how they are interpreted. Those who present us with numbers don’t always point to the appropriate way to interpret them, however. Indeed, manifold devices are deployed — unwittingly as well as deliberately — to help numbers insinuate unwarranted implications. Read, for example, Darrell Huff’s “How to Lie with Statistics” to be alerted to the grain of truth in the common saying that “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics”.

One does not need to be a mathematician or a statistician to think sensibly about the significance conveyed by numbers. A few general points, expressed as questions to ask of presented numbers, can be of enormous help:
→   What is the accuracy, the margin of uncertainty?
→  Was the measurement made on an appropriate sample?
→  With surveys of humans: How were the questions phrased?
→   Above all: Is this detailed report overall compatible with the accepted theory?

I’ve been puzzled a number of times as mainstream articles present numbers clearly incompatible with HIV/AIDS theory without bringing a storm of commentary let alone re-evaluation.

One occasion was what eventually made me an AIDS Rethinker. Harvey Bialy cited (at p. 184) the early finding that teenage girls and boys applying for military service from all over the United States in the mid-1980s tested “HIV-positive” at about the same rate. This was obviously quite incompatible with the orthodox view of HIV/AIDS, namely, that HIV entered the United States during the 1970s within communities of gay men and caused AIDS among them by the late 1970s and early 1980s: in no way could such a purported infection have spread by the mid-1980s throughout the country to affect teenage girls everywhere as often as teenage boys. Therefore I suspected there was something wrong with the source Bialy had cited, and I set out to confirm that suspicion. The rest is history. The source was cited correctly, and together with all other published data on HIV tests demonstrates beyond any doubt that what the “HIV” tests detect or measure is not an AIDS-causing infectious agent; see my book  about it.*

Then there’s the fact that the peak age for testing “HIV-positive” is the same as the peak age for an AIDS diagnosis and the same as the peak age for death from “HIV disease”, making obvious nonsense of the “latent period” “slow-virus” story [No HIV “latent period”: dotting i’s and crossing t’s, 21 September 2008].

That last concerns numbers that are not widely disseminated, though, I had to calculate them from other published data. So too with the fact that mortality among “people living with AIDS” is independent of age, unlike with every other ailment to which humankind is subject and incontrovertibly nonsensical [Age shall not wither them — because HIV really doesn’t kill, 4 February 2009].

But there’s an entirely straightforward, publicly disseminated numerical assertion that had been nagging at me for quite some time because, as with the paper cited by Bialy, it’s quite obviously incompatible with the official view of HIV/AIDS: the repeated assertions from official spokespeople that something like a quarter or a third of “HIV-positive” people don’t know their state of “infection”. This has become so much a shibboleth that it has recently been emphasized as support for initiatives to institute universal HIV testing and treatment [GAYnocide in San Francisco, 2010/04/04].
But if this assertion were true then the standard story about HIV/AIDS could not be true. From at least the mid-1980s, about a million Americans have been “HIV-positive” (see sources cited at pp. 1-2 & 108 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory). If 250,000-330,000 of them were not known to be “infected”, and if on average they would succumb to AIDS about a decade later (since obviously they were not being treated), then the numbers of AIDS deaths should have climbed towards ≥250,000 annually by the mid-1990s at the latest and should have remained at least that high ever since. But AIDS deaths have been nowhere near such numbers.**
Therefore, if the CDC’s assertions are correct that 25-33% of “HIV-positives” don’t know it, and yet AIDS deaths have been much lower than would correspond to this, then a large proportion of “HIV-positive” people must have been long-term non-progressors or elite controllers — apparently unbeknownst to the CDC, though they surely should have drawn this plain inference from their own statements.

The proportion of potential long-term non-progressors can in fact be calculated from available official data. CDC has published firm estimates of the annual number of new HIV “infections”. Many estimates have been published over the years of the total numbers of “HIV-positive” Americans.*** Detailed numbers are made available periodically by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about numbers of people “living with HIV”, “living with HIV/AIDS”, and dead from AIDS (or “HIV disease”).

It turns out that
if every American were to be HIV-tested,
something like half of them would be
potential long-term non-progressors or elite controllers

The detailed calculations can be found in the earlier cited article in the Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology [Medical students in Africa need not fear HIV, 2010/05/31; REPRINT of Galletti & Bauer, 2010/06/03], and also now in a different context in “Iatrogenic harm following ‘HIV’ testing”, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 15 (#2, summer 2010) 42-46.  It’s gratifying that the Journal’s press release about this article was picked up quite widely, for example by Yahoo! Politics which boasts 56,825,000 visitors/day, or AOL DailyFinance
(a mere 860,000 visitors/day).

The title of that article reflects an obvious chain of reasoning. If everyone who tests “HIV-positive” were to be put on antiretroviral drugs, which is increasingly being urged irrespective of individual state of health or CD4 count, then about half of those people would be severely damaged for no good reason by the debilitating “side” effects of antiretroviral treatment.

The $2.5 million awarded to Audrey Serrano may then be just the harbinger of a huge future bonanza for trial lawyers; but perhaps they would collectively gladly forfeit such bounty if that would avoid the enormous human costs of subjecting tens of thousands of healthy Americans — and many more than that Africans — to iatrogenic harm from misguided, uncalled-for, unwarranted antiretroviral treatment.

* Please note that nothing in my book has been discredited. All the reviews by uncommitted individuals have been thoroughly favorable. The most determined critic, Kalichman, could only find fault by attacking things that are not said in my book (see “Kalichman re-writes Bauer’s book — Kalichman’s disgracefully un-Komical Kaper #10”, 2009:05:26). The most determinedly negative review of my book on was so egregiously non-substantive and ad hominem that its author — then graduate student and AIDS-truther, Kenneth Witwer — soon withdrew it.

**Actually even earlier than the mid-1990s the numbers of AIDS deaths should have been higher than they actually were, because a million Americans didn’t become “HIV-infected” suddenly in 1985, by then there must have been substantial numbers of “HIV-positive” Americans for quite a few years already.

*** Always since 1985 the number has magically remained the same at about 1 million. That in itself ought to have sufficed to raise strenuous doubts about HIV/AIDS theory.

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV/AIDS numbers, uncritical media | Tagged: , | 16 Comments »

REPRINT of Galletti & Bauer

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/06/03

An optical scan of the article, “Safety issues in didactic anatomical dissection in regions of high HIV prevalence”, Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology, 114 #4 [2009] 179-92, by Matteo Prayer Galletti & Henry H. Bauer, is now available HERE.

Posted in HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV/AIDS numbers | Leave a Comment »

%d bloggers like this: