HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Are the best things free?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2011/10/16

“The best things in life are free” applies, like all other such generalizations, in some cases but not in others.
When it comes to information about HIV/AIDS, the best information is available from AIDS Rethinkers, and much of it is available entirely free over the Internet. Some in professional journals may require the help of Interlibrary Loan, and some books may need to be borrowed or bought, but none of this is particularly expensive.
One point of considerable importance is the mainstream-asserted HIV/AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. That the official UNAIDS and WHO numbers are greatly exaggerated has been asserted authoritatively by the former WHO epidemiologist, James Chin, in The AIDS Pandemic (2007). The fact had been noted years earlier by the South African journalist Rian Malan: “AIDS in Africa: In search of the truth”, Rolling Stone Magazine, 22 November 2001; “Africa isn’t dying of Aids”, The Spectator (London), 14 December 2003.
Despite that, Chigwedere et al. published the absurd claim, based on the highly exaggerated UNAIDS estimates, that failure to provide antiretroviral drugs had caused ~300,000 unnecessary deaths (“Estimating the lost benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa”, JAIDS 49 [2008] 410-5). Duesberg et al. pointed out that the official government agency, Statistics South Africa, reported deaths from AIDS that were 1/25 of the UNAIDS estimate, ~12,000 annually rather than ~300,000, but JAIDS refused to publish the correction. It was later accepted by Medical Hypotheses, published on-line, but later withdrawn by Elsevier Publishers at the behest of mainstream vigilantes (Elsevier-Gate). The same facts were later published by Galletti and Bauer (“Safety issues in didactic anatomical dissection in regions of high HIV prevalence”, Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology, 114 #4 [2009] 179-92).

Rethinkers were pleased, then, that recognition of these facts appeared to have become common knowledge, as indicated by a press release trumpeting a new report, “Where are the bodies? — HIV/AIDS statistics in South Africa —— New report recalculates AIDS-related death estimates with powerful policy implications”:
“•    Pharmaceutical companies investing $300 million into developing HIV/AIDS drugs while anticipating a global market of 40+ million people will be competing for a market only a fraction of the size.
•    AIDS/HIV research consumes 42% of government, corporate, and philanthropic research funding while the two largest killers in the third-world (pneumonia and diarrhea) receive less than 6 per cent combined; tuberculosis remains the biggest killer in the third world.
•    Only a tiny fraction of the 5.6 million people in Africa who are receiving anti-retroviral drugs actually have HIV infection.  Not only are the anti-retroviral drugs potentially toxic, ‘the frightening scenario looms that widespread, but curable, diseases are wrongly classified as AIDS-related complex, thereby foregoing appropriate treatment. . . .
UNAIDS estimated that the Republic of South Africa had 360,000 HIV/AIDS deaths in 1997.  However, after tabulating all deaths for 1997, South Africa attributed only 6,635 deaths to HIV/AIDS. . . .
The supposed HIV seroprevalence rates in the Republic of South Africa exceed all plausible limits of heterosexual HIV transmission’”.

We were naturally interested to learn more about where this report originated. The press release mentioned that HIV/AIDS Statistics in the Republic of South Africa could be ordered from http://www.MarketResearch.com and http://www.ResearchandMarkets.com. We couldn’t find it there, though an earlier report was listed, Redefining the Size, Scope, and Scale of the AIDS Epidemic
by Forensic Review of the Medical Literature. The press release had been issued by Health Alert Communications, and its website  does offer both reports. Each is offered at the same price of $5,995 for Online Download or $14,995 for a Global Site License.

“You get what you pay for” is another of those common generalizations whose opposite is often the case. For just under $6000, information is available from Health Alert Communications that was earlier available for free in several places.

These Reports illustrate how huge and lucrative has become the HIV/AIDS BUSINESS, the HIV/AIDS INDUSTRY. Tens of billions of dollars are expended annually on research, treatment and associated social activities, so it becomes feasible for entrepreneurs to attempt to market publicly available information in dressed-up format in a manner that seems to offer commercial benefit: “Pharmaceutical companies investing $300 million into developing HIV/AIDS drugs while anticipating a global market of 40+ million people will be competing for a market only a fraction of the size”.

We face a dilemma:
Is it worth investing $5995 in order to determine whether Health Alert Communications could be sued for plagiarism or for violating the copyrights of the journals and books that have previously published these analyses?
Or perhaps Rethinkers should no longer cast valuable pearls freely before the unappreciative public and instead offer their services, at modest fees, to Health Alert Communications.

8 Responses to “Are the best things free?”

  1. I had a brief email discussion with the author. I doubt that he is plagiarizing and I think he is a dissident. So he’s possibly doing us a big service. If a few big organizations get cold feet about the AIDS industry that will be very good. Having seen these kinds of reports a few times he probably did piggyback on our research, but that’s not copyrighted, and he’s probably good at summarizing someone else’s summaries into his own words.

    • Henry Bauer said

      David Crowe:
      Thanks for the information.
      My comments re plagiarism and copyright were tongue-in-cheek, the point I wanted to make seriously was about the ridiculous pricing.
      What were the author’s 1992 booklet and textbook? I assumed they were mainstream publications.

  2. Dear Henry –

    Thank you your interest in my report, HIV/AIDS STATISTICS IN SOUTH AFRICA. However, in all due respect, I strongly resent the ill-informed, and may I say, rude, suggestion that I plagiarized anybody’s work. HIV/AIDS STATISTICS IN SOUTH AFRICA is my fourth work on HIV/AIDS.

    I wrote and published my first work in 1985, UNDERSTANDING AND PREVENTING AIDS: A BOOK FOR EVERYONE. a miniature compendium (32 pages) comprehensively reporting the breadth of current scientific understanding. It was adopted as an educational and reference text by Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), the hospital affiliated with Harvard Medical School. Prior to adoption, the Booklet was approved by the 20-member MGH AIDS Board which included some of the leading AIDS clinicians of the time. MGH purchased 1500 copies: one for every department head and one for every clinical unit in the hospital.

    In 1988, I published a greatly expanded second edition of UNDERSTANDING AND PREVENTING AIDS: A BOOK FOR EVERYONE — a 242 page textbook. In writing this book, I spent 3 months in Harvard’s Countway library photocopying 2000 scientific, medical, and professional journal articles. I spent $3000.00 US in dimes on the photocopy machines. I Then spent the next 18 months reading, collating, and writing the textbook.

    In this textbook published in 1988, I state that both the origin in African monkey theory, and the supposedly devastating African AIDS epidemic were high questionable. The book was reviewed by the New England Journal of Medicine. Roughly, I’d guess, that was the first self-published book reviewed by NEJM since, say, the 1800s?

    So to me — you are all fledglings. New comers. I’ve been reporting the empirical data since 1985. And, in doing so, fighting the flagrant misconceptions.

    For compiling REDEFINING THE SIZE, SCOPE, AND SCALE OF THE AIDS EPIDEMIC BY FORENSIC REVIEW OF THE MEDICAL LITERATURE and HIV/AIDS STATISTICS IN SOUTH AFRICA, I have the last 3 years visiting libraries and collating information. I have collected 3500 PDFs of scientific journal articles on my computer and spent over $5000 dollars buying scientific journal articles that were not available at my local medical libraries.

    The information of my reports are entirely based on the medical literature. I don’t bother with any other sources. I am aware of the AIDS dissidents and have recently communicated with a few, but the extent of their literature pales compared to that of my own.

    The trade book industry (i.e., literary agents, book stores) has no interest in this work, so I’ve fallen back to Plan B, which is make this information available to decision-makers in the pharmaceutical, diagnostic, and biotechnology industries because they are more open-minded then the scientific/medical community, are employers of the scientific/medical community and know the scientific/medical community can make mistakes. Plus, millions and millions of dollars are involved. If I can affect the decision-makers, than it will have a top-down effect, such that millions of Africans will no longer receive anti-retroviral drugs in absence of HIV infection.

    So to repeat: the content of information in my reports is not available anywhere else, unless some one else has spent approximately 7 years time 40-hours a week over the last 20 years to read, collate, and write such information.

    In parting, if the sober reporting the empirical data from the medical literature makes me a dissident, then dissident I am.

    Chris Jennings
    Author

    • Henry Bauer said

      Chris Jennings:
      I’m sorry that you, like David Crowe and therefore probably many others, failed to recognize that my remarks re plagiarism and copyright were tongue-in-cheek. Anyone who has had to deal with issues of plagiarism, as we have had to in academe quite often, would have understood that; and copyright doesn’t even come into it.

      My comments overall were obviously based on the press release, since I didn’t have a copy of the report itself to do a proper review. The conclusions mentioned in that press release are nothing new, as I pointed out.

      I was unable to find copies of your earlier publications despite library and amazon and Google searches and so could not inform myself about them either.
      I certainly hope that your summarizing of the mainstream literature will arouse more attention than have the dozens of books and articles published by other dissidents. Unless the mainstream changes its views, the market for antiretrovirals will remain high, I’m afraid.

    • I wish you guys could get together and make some YouTube videos of interviews about your books (and include information about how to acquire copies by purchase, rental, or loan). Just create some possibility that the information could “go viral” in a good way. I’m looking for a multi-win scenario.

  3. Yes, sorry I didn’t get the joke 😦

  4. Chris Jennings said

    Please pardon my perhaps over strong response and thank you for your considerate reply. No, I didn’t comprehend the tongue-in-cheek aspect of your narrative,but my eyes are fatigued now from the recent sprint.

    Also, I do not want to proffer myself as the know-all-and-be-all. Some other independent voices have extraordinary and valid knowledge and perspectives on these issues. My contribution, if any, comes from a relatively deep knowledge of the literature.

    Thanks again for your interest.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Chris Jennings:
      No offence was taken, Chris. We both were working on incomplete information. I suspect a difference in background has a lot to do with it, mine has been totally in academe where publications are freely available, I take it yours has been largely in corporate circumstances where interested companies are used to paying for useful analyses.
      Best regards.

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