HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Ignorance about HIV and AIDS

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2011/03/21

“[C]ontinuing, unaddressed public ignorance
about the routes and actual risks of HIV transmission
informs policy making at every level and
burdens the lives of people living with HIV”.

That, you might think, was said by a Rethinker, but it wasn’t. It comes from Rene Bennett-Carlson, managing attorney at  the Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP) in New York City: “This young man may lose 15 years of his life to a prison cell for being HIV positive. If he hadn’t gotten an HIV test he wouldn’t be facing these penalties.”
Bennett-Carlson’s appropriate comments were stimulated by the case of a Missouri man charged with “recklessly and knowingly exposing some one to HIV” — because he is alleged to have bitten a police officer (“Advocates alarmed by spike in Missouri HIV prosecutions — Contrary to medical evidence, Missouri law makes biting a felony”).
The Michigan advocates properly cast aspersions at Missouri laws that are based on ignorance about HIV. But they are blind to the mote in their own eyes: “Michigan’s law . . . criminalizes only sexual behavior without disclosure of an HIV-positive status” — which is also based on ignorance of the fact that “HIV-positive” has never been shown to be transmissible by sexual behavior any more than by biting.


Possibly the most serious ignorance among adherents to HIV/AIDS theory is about the high prevalence of false-positive HIV test-results — many physiological conditions can deliver “HIV-positive” results: pregnancy and other conditions that are not unhealthy, and also tuberculosis and many other conditions that bespeak ill health. In other words, “HIV-positive” may indicate ill health for some reason or it may not, and the “not” probably corresponds to something like half of all reported “positives” (Medical students in Africa need not fear HIV; REPRINT of Galletti & Bauer).
[I am using “false-positive” here in this sense, that the “positive” does not reflect any sort of health threat. As I’m often reminded, all “HIV-positive” results are false in the sense that they do not demonstrate the presence of an AIDS-causing agent or the presence of an active retroviral infection.]
The virtually universal ignorance about the high frequency of false-positives on “HIV” tests undermines the credibility of a great deal of the technical literature. Since about half of all “HIV-positive” results are likely to be false-positive in every sense of that term, the statistical evaluation of possible correlations will be invalid in many instances; variables described as “HIV-associated” may actually be false-positive- associated; and correlations not statistically significant may turn out to be statistically significant.
Take the higher incidence of bone-density-loss and bone fracture among “HIV-positive” people. An awareness of the false-positive frequency would require a closer investigation of all the factors that could lead to bone loss and bone fracture and that might at the same time conduce to a false-positive “HIV”-test. Consider the most recent publication on “HIV-associated” bone fracture — Young et al., “Increased rates of bone fracture among HIV-infected persons in the HIV Outpatient Study (HOPS) compared with the US general population, 2000-2006”, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 10 March 2011 [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 21398272 (annoyingly cited incorrectly as “2010;52:1061-1068” on Endocrine Today).

The main point about the need to consider false positives is this:
If all the bone fractures occurred among the “HIV-positive” individuals whose positive test reflected some sort of health threat, then the rate of fracture among those health-threatened ones would be twice that reported here, and associations doubtfully significant might well be statistically significant.
Thus, according to the text of the article, there was no observed association between risk of fracture and “ART exposure”, which presumably corresponds to “ARV exposure” in the table above (extracted from the article’s Table 4) — no significant association with exposure among the 3856-4087 exposed or not known to be exposed. Yet there is an almost statistically significant association among the 3749 exposed to HAART.
Almost all the ARV-exposed were also HAART-exposed — 3749 out of between 3856 and 4087 — so it cannot be true that the association with ARV is so drastically different from the association with HAART.

This illustrates that the data, statistics, and inferences in this article are much less than confidence-inspiring for reasons beyond the neglect of false-positives. However, the data do clearly suggest that bone fracture is HAART-associated: there is a statistically significant association with diabetes, which is a known risk of HAART, and an almost statistically significant association with peripheral neuropathy, also a known risk of HAART. In any case, risk of osteoporosis and bone fracture were also found to be HAART-associated in earlier studies (HIV: It can do anything, everything . . . or nothing?); and  HAART components are known to cause osteonecrosis (bone death), see NIH Treatment Guidelines, 29 January 2008, pp. 23, 30, 67, 69, 80, 84, 101, 102.

The median age of the people studied by Young et al. was 40, far too young for any appreciable incidence of diabetes or peripheral neuropathy in absence of HAART. Note too that anti-depressants and proton-pump inhibitors and drugs used to treat diabetes II also show hints of contributing to the risk of bone fracture. Being diagnosed as “HIV-positive” is, of course, a strong reason why a person might be being subjected to treatment with anti-depressants.

Note further that there is a positive association of fractures with lower CD4 counts, but no association with viral load: yet HIV/AIDS theory demands that CD4 counts and viral load be strongly correlated. (That they are not was already shown by Rodriguez et al. — JAMA, 296 [2006] 1498-1506 —, something conveniently forgotten or ignored or invalidly explained away by true believers.)


The ignorant belief that a positive HIV-test demonstrates infection, “having HIV”, continues to bring criminal charges against people who have sex, e.g. “Help available for victims of HIV-positive Vermilion [Ohio] man”.
The same ignorant belief underlies scare stories like “HIV infection passed via donated kidney: U.S. Report — Donor screening didn’t use most sensitive test, leading to infection of recipient, researchers say”: once again, “researchers” are cited about supposedly sensitive tests, which cannot be known in absence of a gold-standard test; and higher sensitivity is in any case produces a higher rate of false-positives on any test, in this case entirely non-health-threatening “positives”.

It’s often said that ignorance of the law is no excuse; but

Is there an excuse for laws that are ignorant of science?

Is there an excuse for researchers
who are ignorant of central facts pertinent to their research?

Is there an excuse for medical practitioners
who are ignorant of central facts
pertinent to their practices?

Is there an excuse for clinical laboratories
that issue reports of “HIV-positive” without pointing out
that this does not constitute a diagnosis of infection?

10 Responses to “Ignorance about HIV and AIDS”

  1. Clinton said

    Can you do me a favor?
    Please ask this question.
    Can anyone name ALL the 25 diseases that make up the
    (ARC) Aids Related Complex?
    I cannot find them anywhere, they seemed to have disappeared from all the Medical Books!

  2. A definition is in:
    Dournon E et al. Effects of zidovudine in 365 consecutive patients with AIDS or AIDS-related complex. Lancet. 1988 Dec 3; 2: 1297–1302.

    Click to access 645-AZT-365-AIDS-ARC-Patients.pdf

    “ARC patients were included if they had two of the
    following: oral thrush, weight loss of more than 10%, unexplained
    fever or diarrhoea for more than 1 month, herpes zoster, or hairy
    leucoplakia when their CD4 cell count was more than 200/ul; when
    the CD4 cell count was less than 200/µl, then one of these criteria
    was sufficient for inclusion.”
    I’ve never heard of 25 disease for ARC.

    Another one:
    Redfield RR et al. Heterosexually acquired HTLV-III/LAV disease (AIDS-related complex and AIDS). Epidemiologic evidence for female-to-male transmission. JAMA. 1985 Oct 18; 254(15): 2094–6.

    “The ARC is defined as chronic lymphadenopathy with a duration of more than three months with nodules of at least 1 cm in diameter, involving two or more extralingual sites, and an absolute T-helper cell depletion (T-helper cell count <400/cubic mm) persistent for a minimum of six weeks."

    Two things that are interesting about ARC is that the definitions vary so much and most papers that use the concept don’t appear to define it or even reference a source.

    • Lest we forget about “HIV-Disease” How many illnesses fall under this one?

      Speaking of that, I remember on the something a few years back; a question, “BIG question. I have been getting conflicting info on this. What is the difference between HIV and AIDS? I thought (think) there is a huge difference between the two.”

      Dr. Frascino answers; “Hello, No, actually there is not a huge difference… HIV disease is termed AIDS when the immune system has deteriorated to a specific point. The definition of that specific point was made by the CDC for surveillance purposes (so that the number of cases could be determined). At the time the definition was created, HIV disease itself was not a “reportable” condition. Consequently we had difficulty tracking the epidemic or how quickly it was spreading. The CDC then came up with the definition of AIDS and made it a reportable condition. Cases were then reported to the CDC and counted for epidemiological purposes. Since then, new laws have been passed and now HIV alone is also a reportable condition.”

      What’s this? So, not really a “Disease” but a reportable condition for tracking. I would say the good Doc knows what he’s talking about. His reply has “man-made” written all over it.

  3. Martin said

    Hi Dr Bauer, in fact the list comprises 29 indicator diseases. I Googled my search : list of 29 aids indicator diseases
    Voila the article listed all of them. I don’t know how to post links on my IPod yet.

  4. Gorky said

    This comment of mine is not directly related to the posted topic here. However it does relate to HIV/AIDS (in Africa) so I bring it to your attention anyhow.
    Article entitled ‘Testing the Integration of HIV and Public Healthcare’

    Kakamega — HIV could lose its “special status” in Kenya’s health system if a new pilot programme integrating HIV care and public healthcare proves successful.

    Read the rest at the link.

    I don’t know if this is good or bad news, as far as AIDS dissent is concerned. Maybe both? Too early to tell perhaps. Good that “HIV” may lose its status in Kenya and health authorities re-focus resources on other actual endemic
    illnesses (however badly they mess those up with their often dubious treatments). Yet the bad news is that “HIV” is now considered so a part of the “normal” background environment — that is the social myth of HIV/AIDS is so completely entrenched — that it becomes ever harder to combat and dispel.

    “Lowering the stigma” of “HIV status” does not appear to be a good thing at all. Well, not from our POV. It’s good news for Big Pharma though, and their unwitting stooges.

    From the linked article at


    Health workers in western Kenya say the new system has reduced levels of stigma and, in turn, increased the number of people seeking HIV care.

    “It is not only reducing stigma but is also easing the staff shortages that had been experienced earlier when too much focus was placed on HIV/AIDS,” said Beatrice Misoga, HIV/AIDS integration officer for US government-supported AIDS, Population and Health Integrated Assistance II (APHIA II) in Western Kenya.

    Consolata Msamali, the clinical officer in charge of the Tonguren Health Centre, says she has already noticed a difference since the CCC was closed.

    “Drug adherence has increased and many more are seeking treatment,” she said. “Things have become very discreet for HIV patients because even their drugs, they don’t take from the pharmacy like anybody else but they get it from the clinician’s room.”

    Getting drugs from the pharmacist –– usually a public room –– runs the risk of people discovering one’s HIV status from the type of drug they are prescribed.


    Hardly good news in other words.

  5. Martin said

    Kaposi Sarcoma was listed in Wikipedia’s definition of ARC — I didn’t know there was a difference — of course I believe the AIDS establishment have made all of these clinical criteria and definitions very fuzzy to give them an out. Think of the term ICL — it’s obviously “AIDS” but without the pseudo-medical diagnosis of HIV infection. Also the Bangui definition of AIDS in Africa — very fuzzy — an umbrella that would include just about anything.

  6. Martin said

    Hi Dr Bauer, I just read your article in ARAS on propaganda in the Royal Society and the BBC with Sir Nurse. It’s something like having affable gentlemen like Alan Alda or Sir Richard Attenborough narrating a science program on PBS. I cringe every time the script writers say an organism was designed for (Creationism) instead of adapted to (Natural Selection) their environment.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Yes, evolutionists and also sociologists tend to slip into talking as though things happen by purpose.

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: