HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Confusion worse confounded: Explaining AIDS Rethinking to non-thinkers

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/12/21

Innumerable aspects of mainstream “HIV/AIDS” practices and semantics have so muddied the facts that it has become very difficult to educate people who have not been previously exposed to actual evidence about HIV and AIDS; “naïve” people, if one may use the terminology of HAART treatment.
The pervasive term, “HIV/AIDS”, and the pervasive phrase, “HIV — the virus that causes AIDS”, even make it difficult for the naïve individual to think of those two things as distinct from one another, and that is the first barrier to learning the actual facts. The popular confusion between “HIV” and “AIDS” is incessantly re-emphasized in the media, and this makes it easy for the mainstream to get away with semantic tricks like re-naming AIDS-associated nephropathy as HIV-associated nephropathy (Kidney-disease denialism (a special case of HAART denialism); and of course that’s only one of many possible illustrations of the mischief brought on by linking “HIV” and “AIDS” as though they were inseparable. This mischief, this confounded confusion (pun intended) makes it enormously difficult to explain a Rethinking position to the naïve ones who have previously heard only the standard mainstream sound-bites. What they need to grasp is that
1. “AIDS” has been progressively redefined. Nowadays almost any seriously life-threatening condition might be called “AIDS”, whereas 1980s AIDS comprised just Kaposi’s sarcoma and some very specific, highly opportunistic, primarily fungal infections.
2. “HIV” tests actually detect not a virus but one or more of a number of substances — a dozen proteins, or various bits of DNA or RNA — that were frequently present in 1980s AIDS patients. “HIV” tests are 1980s-AIDS tests, not tests for a virus. Everything called “HIV-associated” is actually “AIDS-associated” or “HAART-associated”.
3. Because in 1984 the whole apparatus of medical research and practice began to behave as though 1980s-AIDS tests detected a virus, more and more complex rationalizations have had to be constructed in attempts to explain away the evidence that has increasingly exposed the failings of HIV/AIDS theory: no vaccine, no microbicide, “life-saving” drugs that don’t prolong lives, “prevention” approaches that don’t prevent, no mechanism by which “HIV” could produce illness, etc., etc. (browse blog posts under “HIV absurdities”, for example).

1.   “AIDS” has been progressively redefined
The original AIDS was critical illness, typically followed by death within months of diagnosis: either AIDS-KS (blood-vessel damage occasioned by abuse of nitrite inhalants) or advanced fungal infections (Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia or candidiasis [yeast infections or thrush]) which gained hold upon serious damage to the immune-system functions of the gut.
Following the conclusion-jump in 1984 that “HIV” was the cause of AIDS and that 1980s-AIDS tests detect “HIV”, an increasing number of other conditions were included under “AIDS”.
Following the introduction of AZT, an increasing number of “HIV-positive” people became ill and died as a result of AZT-poisoning, which produces visible symptoms similar to those of 1980s-AIDS: wasting of body tissues, loss of vital functions, dementia.
The manner in which “AIDS” is diagnosed changed from clinically observable illness to being based on laboratory tests. In 1993, this change in mode of diagnosis reached its ultimate and tragic conclusion, at least in the United States, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defined “AIDS” purely in terms of “HIV-positive” and CD4 counts in peripheral blood — cell counts that are now being recognized as fallacious markers for the health of the immune system.
(It is worth noting that the shift from clinically based diagnosis to lab-test-based diagnosis is not unique to HIV/AIDS. Heart health, too, used to be diagnosed by clinical symptoms — shortness of breath, numbness of arm, chest pains — but increasingly is gauged on the basis of cholesterol levels and blood-pressure numbers. PSA tests — at least for a couple of decades — became enshrined invalidly as markers for prostate cancer. Blood-sugar levels became accepted markers for diabetes, even for “pre-diabetes”. Actively complicit in these invalid shifts have been the drug companies, who market medications based on lab-test results, medications intended for lifelong use with inevitably resulting iatrogenic liver disease, neuropathy, mental confusion, and other “side” effects.)

The progressive re-definition of “AIDS” has muddied the waters as to what the actual causes of “AIDS” deaths have been and are. Rethinkers are therefore unable to answer natural, obvious, valid questions of the sort, “So what did they die of if not HIV infection leading to AIDS?”, because published data permit only speculation about the cause of death in specific cases, and the original medical records are unlikely to be more informative. The large wiggle room in such speculative discussions is illustrated by the ability of mainstreamers to insinuate “HIV” involvement in such deaths as those of Christine Maggiore and her daughter.

2.   “HIV” tests are not
The prime source of confusion is the non-specificity of “HIV” tests, which were actually 1980s-AIDS tests and have turned out to respond “positive” to an enormous range of physiological conditions, not all of them health-threatening, for example pregnancy, flu vaccination, or anti-tetanus shots. That simple fact in itself is very hard for people to swallow who have been indoctrinated by the pervasive sound-bites of the conventional wisdom. One might do well always to have close at hand a copy of the Weiss & Cowan article* with certain sections highlighted: there is no gold standard “HIV” test; no tests can “confirm” “HIV infection”; because the overall prevalence of “HIV” is low (outside Africa and the Caribbean), most “positive” tests are false positives.
* Stanley H. Weiss and Elliott P. Cowan, Chapter 8 in AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection, ed. Gary P. Wormser, 4th ed. (2004)

If one can open someone’s eyes to those two points, they might then be receptive to hearing about the people who have been and are being damaged by the prevailing errors and confusion: those who for some reason or another are likely to test “HIV-positive” and be subjected inappropriately to dangerously toxic “medications”. As to point 3, all the self-contradictions and conundrums disappear once the HIV=AIDS belief is abandoned.

6 Responses to “Confusion worse confounded: Explaining AIDS Rethinking to non-thinkers”

  1. Martin said

    Hi Dr. Bauer,
    Are there any “Positive” ELISA or Western Blots in the history of “AIDS” where the tested individual actually was infected with HIV? I think you are being cautious — the difference between probability and possibility. In universe almost nothing is really impossible.

  2. Nokwindla said

    Hi Henry,

    Could you please proffer a view about this article: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/647522.html

    Is the science credible?

    As a parting comment, here in South Africa all treatments proposed that do not comprise ARVs or derivatives thereof seem to be rejected out of hand by the media, NGOs and (recently) government (see this response from Thobile Mbengashe of the Dept of Health, for e.g., http://www.thenewage.co.za/6037-1020-53-Aids_'cure'_found,_German_doctors_claim ). The same negative response occurred recently when it was reported that some texas university/clinic had discovered/synthesized elements of green tree for use against HIV and/or Aids (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=474354405698&comments&ref=mf ). Personally, as a person who is not aligned to neither the mainstream or the rethink perspective am surprised at such responses (typically from mainstreamers) because one would have expected that any treatment or cure (regardless its origins or the perspective from which it originates) would be welcomed. Seemingly, only treatments from the big pharmaceutical groups are acceptable.

    Nokwindla

    • Henry Bauer said

      Nokwindla:
      No, the science is not credible. we do not know when the patient become “HIV+”, nor for what reason — quite possibly because of his leukemia.
      All the test instructions, and reference books, state plainly that no lab test suffiices to diagnose HIV infection, yet practitioners everywhere continue to do so.

  3. Henry,

    Did you want to have a cliff hanger for year’s end? “Point 3…once the HIV=AIDS belief is abandoned.”

    Allow me to add to your title a little thing — Explaining AIDS Rethinking to people caught on the barbed-wire fence with one foot in the cesspool and another on dry land; or another blog entry name for you, The Lazarus Gone Wild. What I’m referring to is this notion how pharmaceutical toxins, although said to be miraculous for near-death recovery, have been extrapolated by some to mean good therapy for what ails you.

    Therefore, currently I’m finding it increasingly difficult and mighty precarious to try and lead other learned dissenters towards a total abandonment as your point 3., for it is my experience and dearly held opinion that total abandonment is quite frankly the best way to go, maybe the only way to go, if one truly wants to optimize their health and longevity in the face of a wrought-with-fear HIV diagnosis.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Brian Carter:
      I empathize totally. My life-long burden is that “the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought”, so I refrain from advising other people unless I’m completely certain; and regarding ARVs, I respect the work of Juliane Sacher and Claus Koehnlein who treat PWAs with attention to manifest illnesses but resort to short-course ARVs, as the most powerful antibiotics or anti-inflammatories, when nothing else seems to have worked.
      I’m further inhibited by not having any medical experience or qualifications. And by believing that the explanation that might do the trick with one person won’t necessarily work with any others.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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