HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Follow the money: Is HIV/AIDS fading away?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/12/12

Trying to predict what might bring an end to the HIV/AIDS scandal, one suggestion has been that the U.S. Congress might examine carefully what it has been buying for the ≥$20 billion annually being spent on foreign aid and research and social services connected with “HIV/AIDS”. But it might be that such funding will slowly wither and whimper away rather than ending with a bang: all over the world, spending on this phantom threat appears to be declining, to the anger and astonishment and dismay of those who have been feeding so amply from this trough.

In the United States:
AIDS protest targets Emanuel — A group of Yale AIDS activists, joined by faculty members, Harvard students and activists from New York City, staged a protest on campus yesterday in response to stagnant AIDS funding from the Obama administration”.
AHF [AIDS Healthcare Foundation] issues call for action against cuts in AIDS funding”.
Even high-publicity campaigns by celebrities are not doing so well nowadays:
“Kim Kardashian . . . and several other celebs, including Ryan Seacrest, Lady Gaga, Jennifer Hudson, Justin Timberlake, P. Diddy and Usher, vowed on Wednesday to ‘digitally die’ and stay off Twitter and Facebook until $1 million has been raised for Alicia Keys’ Keep a Child Alive Foundation. The money will go to save real lives affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa and India. But as of 4 p.m. ET Friday, only $200,476 has been donated” (“Kim Kardashian is still ‘dead’”, USA TODAY).

In South Africa:
SA reached 5.7M HIV cases, report says — In 2009, the country spent $2.1 billion on AIDS, wherein one-third of it came from international donors including $620 million from the United States. . . . with sufficient amount of money and effective programs, the estimated figure of 350,000 to 500,000 new infection cases annually can gradually brought down to 200,000 a year”; “under this maximum effort scenario, the one that would bring down the epidemic most rapidly, South Africa’s total spending would have to more than double…to somewhere between $4 and $5 billion” (South Africa: At least 5 million new HIV infections expected over next 20 years)  . But that needed increase is not coming: “Aids funding cuts putting pressure on health systems — Motlanthe”.

In Zimbabwe:
“The Global Fund, an international financing institution to Fight HIV, Tuberculosis and Malaria will not be financing Zimbabwe’s Round 10 application for unspecified reasons. The National Aids Council (NAC) Chief Executive Officer Dr Tapiwa Magure has described the news as shocking”.

In Italy, AIDS funding has been cut progressively for nigh on a decade: “Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s government had yet to allot any funds for the national AIDS program in its 2002 budget. To make matters worse, a series of freezes and delays has prevented most researchers from receiving grants awarded for 2001” (Science 295: 1811-2). This is consistent, of course, with the position of the Italian Ministry of Health, that HIV and AIDS are not the same thing and that neither is a public-health threat (Ruggiero et al., Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology, 114: 97-108).

Naturally enough, the executive director of UNAIDS, Michel Sidibé, “is  wrestling  to  renew the momentum and turn the funding  situation around” (“New HIV infections drop, but treatment demands rise”, Science 330: 1301, 3 December 2010). At the International AIDS Conference in Vienna, Caritas International had warned that a cut in funding for programs to fight HIV in the world would set back efforts by two decades (“Un taglio negli aiuti ritarderà di vent’anni la lotta all’Aids”).  “Dwindling donations from rich countries imperils the 2006 U.N. and G8 goal of providing universal access to HIV drugs by 2010” (AIDS 2010 opens: leaders weigh in on global HIV/AIDS funding).

Among the self-contradictions in official statements about HIV/AIDS are the alarums about spreading infections on the one hand and yet claims of marked successes on the other hand. Thus the Sidibé interview is accompanied by a map showing claimed — of course, estimated — reductions of ≥25% in infection rates in half or more of sub-Saharan Africa and little change in the other half, with troubling increases only in the Caucasus region and a couple of small spots in South-East Asia:

If present actions have been so effective, why redouble them?

*                    *                    *                    *                    *                    *                    *                    *

Should any official bodies require further reason to look with jaundice at what passes for “research” into the prevention of HIV infection, they might find it in the “$823,200 of economic stimulus funds in 2009 on a study by a UCLA research team to teach uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex”.

13 Responses to “Follow the money: Is HIV/AIDS fading away?”

  1. Robin said

    What an outpouring of gloating schadenfreude there! You Dr Bauer are personally to blame for this vast loss of momentum and all you can do is gloat. Think of all the squillions of victims who will be cut short by your propaganda!
    Yours, disgustable.

  2. mo79uk said

    Ennui seems to be the antidote.

  3. artwest said


    Blood transplant ‘cures man of HIV’

    Given that he had leukemia, I’d suspect that he had a “false positive” result for the inaccurate-even-if-it-had-something-real-to-test “hiv” test when he was very ill and a “negative” one now he’s better. Not very surprising really.

  4. Martin said

    Hi Dr. Bauer, I don’t believe there is such a thing as a false positive as Artwest suspected. Unfortunately as you have pointed out many times in the past postings, the tests currently in use were never validated because (and I am certain that the establishment scientists know this as well) that HIV has never been found in a single human being. The claim that HIV has been “grown” or replicated is even more specious – if that were so, electron photos would have been published years ago and they would be everywhere. Well, where are they?

    The latest news about the stem cell transplant curing HIV is pure poppycock. I am sure HIV was never even looked for in this person because they religiously believed this person to be infected.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Re “false positive”, again the dilemma of how to deconstruct the mainstream without using their terminology.
      It may well be that there’s no such entity as “HIV”, in which case ALL poz tests are false. But if something like Duesberg’s view is correct, than there are a number of ailments in which a “passenger” HIV often appears; and then “false positive” would be a poz test for some other reason than the ailments that often are accompanied by that “passenger”….
      I think in most discourse, “false positive HIV test” would convey the proper meaning to most people in connection with the tendency of pregnant women, anti-tetanus recipients, people of African ancestry, and so on, to test poz at rates far above the general population.
      In many cases of “infection”, there’s lacking information abut whether there had been tests done earlier.

      • Robin said

        Henry, if the HIV doesn’t really exist–and I agree the evidence does seem strangely elusive–then how was it possible that Montagnier discovered it first and then a gallant other nicked it and falsely claimed it as his own discovery?

      • Henry Bauer said

        Montagnier extracted from someone with pre-AIDS symptoms (swollen lymph glands) something that showed reverse transcriptase activity, able to make DNA corresponding to RNA. At some time, this had been thought to be unique to retroviruses, and Montagnier called this purported retrovirus LAV — lymphadenopathic virus. Not long after that it was realized that all cells have their reverse transcription activity. Montagnier sent a sample of LAV to Gallo, in whose lab for some reason or other they “isolated” a new retrovirus that later turned out to be identical with LAV.

      • artwest said

        I initially misunderstood your first sentence to mean that you thought that I was implying that there was definitely such a thing as a real positive test for HIV. On second reading I realised that, I think, that wasn’t your meaning.

        Just to clarify for anyone else who might be confused, my view, for what it’s worth, is the same as that of Dr Bauer in his reply here. IF there is such a thing as HIV then a) it isn’t reliably detected by the tests to the exclusion of anything else, innocuous or otherwise and b)it doesn’t cause “AIDS” – whatever “AIDS” is being defined as this year.

      • Guy said

        I believe in your book you used the term “seropositive”, and even had a symbol for it. I took that to mean simply that the blood in question caused a reaction in three out of nine or ten proteins (I have seen both numbers in print)that caused the individual analyzing the test to rule the test positive. Perhaps this term or another could be used to communicate that the speaker or writer does not attribute the seropositivity to anything well defined.

        It seems that seropositivity is caused by the body defending against proteins the immune system is not used to encountering (or encountering in the wrong place). The long list of conditions correlated with seropositivity is consistent with the many combinations of reactions in the test that will result in a positive diagnosis. Are records kept of what bands exactly reacted? If so, we could see if the combination of reactions correlates with the condition. E.G., does pregnancy cause reaction in the same three proteins consistently? Does TB do the same, but for different proteins than pregnancy?

      • Henry Bauer said

        I used “F(HIV)” for the frequency of positive tests, to avoid calling it the prevalence of infection or of the virus.
        I have not seen anywhere a record of the WB bands in different cases, and I agree very much that it would be interesting to know whether positive WBs from preganant women are characteristically similar ot one another but differnt from those from gay men, say, or from cocaince injectors, etc.

    • Robin said

      Didn’t Peter D say the test detects antibody (of hiv)? In this video:

      What do you think of that video generally? I was amazed it was produced back in 1996. Presumably the people involved are all 15 yrs older now! But of course its only been on the web for a year or so.
      There’s a second copy here:

      and in full here

  5. kitana said

    I was on a Chinese website and there was a report of a man in Taiwan who was tested positive for HIV after he had a month of fever, fatigue and typical “sero-conversion” symptoms but was informed after a month that he was really negative. The hospital that performed the test changed the “sensitivity” of the test. This poor guy went through hell and even wrote a will and all his family were shunning him. I didn’t know the testers can tweak the sensitivity of the HIV test. Makes you wonder what are they actually testing.

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: