“HIV” Epidemiology Disproves HIV/AIDS Theory
Posted by Henry Bauer on 2011/04/07
I had been reading books by HIV Skeptics and AIDS Rethinkers for about a decade before Harvey Bialy’s scientific bio of Duesberg led me to collate essentially all the published results of HIV tests in the United States. I was stimulated to do that because data in sources cited by Bialy were incompatible with HIV/AIDS theory; and I became increasingly taken aback, and hooked on the quest, because the more sources I looked at, the more certain became the incompatibility with HIV/AIDS theory. The data show that:
— If HIV tests detect a specific agent, then that agent is not infectious.
— If HIV tests are subject to confounds, then the epidemiology of those confounds is the same as the epidemiology of HIV, which is absurdly inconceivable.
Instead, it is quite evident that “HIV” tests respond “positive” to a wide range of physiological conditions, some of them health-threatening (drug abuse, for example, or tuberculosis) and others no threat to health, for example pregnancy or certain vaccinations.
All that is reported in my book, which gained plaudits from every reviewer who is not an HIV/AIDS true-believer.
After the book’s publication I started this blog, and in the several years since then I’ve learned a great deal more, thanks largely to comments and correspondence from many people. It is now clear to me that the issue of “HIV” tests is the central, crucial, decisive one: since “HIV” tests do not detect an infectious AIDS-causing agent, the whole cardboard-castle edifice of HIV/AIDS theory can collapse as soon as the mainstream media allow even a whiff of fresh air to touch the pervasively misleading propaganda perpetuated by official and unofficial organizations.
Several whiffs of fresh air were indeed offered participants at the recent mainstream Conference on AIDS and Retroviruses where Duesberg et al. exploded the myth of hundreds of thousands of AIDS deaths in South Africa, and Ruggiero et al. illustrated the lack of any “HIV” or “AIDS” epidemic in Italy (or any association between those two), and Galletti et al. offered a concise summary of what is wrong with “HIV” tests:
— About half of all “HIV-positive” results are false positives in the sense of indicating no threat to health
— Disregarding the prevalence of these false positives causes HIV/AIDS theory to promulgate absurdly paradoxical conclusions and to foster misguided public policies
— There is no gold-standard HIV test because pure HIV has never been isolated.
TOWARD IMPROVEMENTS IN HIV EPIDEMIOLOGY
M. Prayer Galletti* , S. Pacini , G. Morucci , H. H. Bauer 
 Department of Experimental Pathology and Oncology, University of Firenze, Florence, Italy;  Department of Anatomy, Histology and Forensic Medicine, University of Firenze, Florence, Italy;  Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Considerable efforts are expended for prevention of HIV infections and for treatment of HIV-positive individuals, and it is widely agreed that improvements in both areas would be highly desirable. Observing and understanding the epidemiology of HIV are centrally necessary for the design of strategies for both prevention and for treatment. The way to improvement is to focus not on successes but on gaps to be filled or missteps to be corrected, so we discuss weaknesses of current practices and conundrums, why expected successes have not materialized. The fundamental uncertainty stems from the lack of a gold-standard HIV test. As a result, one cannot accurately compare HIV data from different global regions that use different testing protocols, for example, varying criteria for what constitutes a positive Western Blot or the availability or non- availability of PCR or culture tests, or drawing inferences about HIV infection based on the Bangui definition of AIDS. In addition to uncertainty in cross-country comparisons, lack of the gold standard entails a fundamental inability to detect, analyze, and correct for false-negative and false-positive test-results by direct means rather than indirect inferences. Therefore, considerable effort would seem to be warranted to prepare pure samples of HIV for establishment of a true gold-standard HIV test. The weaknesses in testing practices may well account for at least some of the troubling conundrums and mutually contradictory data that seem inexplicable. These troubling conundrums include: conflicting estimates of HIV infections and of HIV-disease deaths from equally authoritative sources; apparently drastically different primary modes of trans- mission in different geographic regions (primarily among drug injectors in Russia and Eastern Europe, primarily among married couples in sub-Saharan Africa, primarily among gay men and drug addicts in the United States and Western Europe); extreme racial disparities in HIV infection, with Asians and Asian Americans consistently less affected, by about one-third, than white Americans, while black Americans are affected by as much as an order of magnitude more than white Americans. Testing uncertainties doubtless also contribute to the confusion as to whether certain conditions (e.g. lipodystrophy or nephropathy) should be described as HIV-associated or as AIDS-associated. Although it is the time-honoured practice in science that such anomalies or conundrums are quarantined in the expectation that progress will eventually resolve them without research focused directly at the anomalies, it would seem in the case of HIV/AIDS that specific efforts would be worth pursuing to resolve at least some of these conundrums, because a better understanding would improve epidemiological data and understanding and help toward the design of better strategies for prevention and treatment.