HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Census Bureau supports Duesberg

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2012/02/12

Duesberg et al. (“HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS – A new perspective”)  had debunked the claim by Chigwedere, Essex, et al. (“Estimating the lost benefits of antiretroviral
drug use in South Africa”, JAIDS 49 [2008] 410-5) that antiretroviral treatment could have saved about 330,000 lives in South Africa between 2000 and 2005 — or 2.2 million person-years — were it not for the misguided theories of Peter Duesberg taken seriously by President Mbeki.
So threatening to the HIV/AIDS Establishment was the Duesberg refutation of Chigwedere et al. that Nobelist Barre-Sinoussi was enlisted to lead-sign a protest against the Duesberg publication, which led eventually to the demise of Medical Hypotheses as a credible vehicle for innovative ideas (“Elsevier-Gate”): the journal’s new editor claimed it possible both to  “publish radical new ideas” and at the same time “not . . .  get into controversial subjects” (Martin Enserink, “New Medical Hypotheses editor promises not to stir up controversy”, ScienceInsider, 25 June 2010).
Duesberg et al. had resorted to Medical Hypotheses only after JAIDS — the journal that had published the Chigwedere article — had refused, counter to all standard practice not to say common decency, to allow a response in  its own pages.
Despite Elsevier’s withdrawal of the Duesberg article, it has been freely available  on the Internet, but it seemed proper and useful to have it in the mainstream literature indexed as other than “withdrawn”. Independent peer review led to the recent publication of the Duesberg arguments in the Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology , and the abstract is now in PubMed:

Of course the HIV/AIDS vigilantes were beside themselves at this turn of events, and even more that it was brought to widespread attention by a piece on the Nature website. Subsequent fury was expressed in comments to that piece, leading to rather comical machinations by Nature editors attempting to cleanse its site by “losing” those comments owing to an alleged software glitch, see “NATURE and science journalism”.
That blog posting brought a highly informative comment  from Jean Umber: Dr. Willy Rozenbaum, who had given Montagnier the first samples in which “HIV” was supposedly found, had published in 2007 a presentation which showed projections by the US Census Bureau of how the population of South Africa would grow if AIDS were present or if AIDS had not been present:

This is precisely one of the arguments made by Duesberg et al., that the actual population growth in South Africa is what had been projected to happen if AIDS were not present:

According to the official doomsayers of the HIV/AIDS faith, AIDS should have capped the South African population at about 45 million around the year 2000; instead the population has continued to grow in steady fashion.
The defenders of HIV/AIDS theory had ventured a couple of substantive criticisms of the original Duesberg article, among them that this comparison of actual with projected population growth is not convincing. Yet it is the US Census Bureau that published the projections with and without AIDS, and what actually happened is precisely what the Bureau projected if AIDS were not decimating the population.
Rozenbaum’s slide does not give details (other than the date of 2004) for the actual Census Bureau documents from which he extracted these projections. It may well have been The AIDS Pandemic in  the 21st  Century, issued March 2004, tagged WP/02-2, described as an International Population Report by  Karen A. Stanecki, and given the imprimatur not only of the US Census Bureau but also of the Office of HIV/AIDS, Bureau for Global Health, U.S. Agency for International Development. That document does give copious details of projections with and without AIDS, in numbers and histograms and graphs. It also provides even further support for the validity of the case made by Duesberg et al.:
One of the persistent criticisms made by HIV/AIDS vigilantes is that numbers for the prevalence of “HIV-positive” used by Duesberg et al. came from pre-natal clinics and that data on pregnant women was not a valid proxy for the rate of “HIV-positive” in the general population of South Africa. To the contrary, the Census Bureau points out that it is a very good proxy, and why that is the case:

Although this particular figure refers to data from Zambia, the Census Bureau describes it as representative for all of sub-Saharan Africa:
In Sub-Saharan Africa,  More Women Than Men  Are HIV Positive
At the end of 2001, UNAIDS estimated that 58 percent of all HIV infections in Sub-Saharan Africa were among women.  Peak HIV prevalence among women occurs at a younger age than among men: around age 25 compared to age 35-40.  As Figures 3 and 4 show for Rwanda and Zambia, younger women tend to have higher levels of HIV infection than men of their same age. Several studies have shown that HIV prevalence among pregnant women attending antenatal clinics provides a reasonable overall estimate of HIV prevalence in the general adult population, although it underestimates the rate among all women while overestimating it among men.  This is shown for Zambia in Figure 4.”

*                    *                    *                    *                    *                    *                    *                    *

Note that the Census Bureau Figure 4 above is also yet another illustration of the demographic fact that, in all populations for which data have been published, prevalence of “HIV-positive” rises from the mid-teens and falls again at higher ages, and that females test “HIV-positive” more than males at the younger ages while the opposite is seen at higher ages. The exact ages at which the ratio reverses, and at which “HIV-positive” reaches a maximum, varies not only with sex but also with race; African genes are associated with a longer age-span during which females test positive more than males. For details see a number of earlier blog posts confirming all the trends pointed to in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory.

14 Responses to “Census Bureau supports Duesberg”

  1. As a South African, who has been involved in treating AIDS patients in African for 15 years, despite ARVs use which has apparently killed about 300.000 per year, our population continues to grow @ 3,9% last year.
    The 300,000 that is so eloquently mentioned, where do these figures come from as AIDs figures are mainly from anti-natal clinics and mostly of African pregnant mothers.
    Secondly, the MRC (Medical Research Council of South Africa) also claimed that syphilis figures were down substantially including STDs because of condom use, and yet they say that the HIV figure continued to rise (?). How can this possibly be?
    Those South Africans that were not given ARVs during former state president Thabo Mbeki’s tenure as head of state, were lucky not to receive ARVs. The estimation that 357.000 South African died is grossly exaggerated! A local news channel called, e-News, wanted to take Mbeki to court, but they withdrew their application, possibly not prepared what they were about to hear of the real debate. Even a prominent constitutional court expert Pierre de Vos was cautious about his remarks in dragging the former president to the highest court in the country…

  2. Jean Umber said

    Thank’s Henry.

    If it can help Ruairidh MacDonald in his discussion with Colin Esperson, I found a publication by two German mathematicians, Gerd Gigerenzer and Ulrich Hoffrage, which connect the PPV (Positive Predictive Value) to the prevalence and sensitivity. This is page 4.

    Click to access GG_AIDS_1998.pdf

    They show that the PPV is less than 50% in a group not at risk.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Jean Umber:
      Thanks for another useful reference.
      It is a statistical fact that no matter how accurate and specific a test is claimed to be, in low-prevalence populations the rate of false positives is appreciable; see for instance J. M. Orient, Sapira’s Art and Science of Bedside Diagnosis (3rd ed., Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005).
      Specifically in connection with HIV tests, Weiss & Cowan (“Laboratory detection of human retroviral infection”, Ch. 8 in Wormser (ed.)., AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection, 4th ed., Academic Press, 2004) calculate that for tests with 99.5% specificity and sensitivity, the PPV for prevalence of 0.1% is only 16.6%.
      Readers of this blog might not realize that your reference to the discussion between MacDonald and Esperson refers to the comments on Corbyn’s second recent piece on the Nature website, and that MacDonald (not a Dr. and a.k.a. various other pseudonyms of C.J.) and Esperson (a.k.a. Snout, etc.) are devout critics of Rethinking AIDS, though they differ in that “Esperson” is a promiscuous maligner of “AIDS-denialists” whereas “MacDonald” does not subscribe to HIV/AIDS theory but believes that the Perth Group has not been given appropriate credit for debunking that theory.

  3. Jason said

    Wait a minute. All through the 90’s, South Africa’s apocalyptic “hiv” figures were based mainly on testing done at antenatal clinics. Is this right? And now they’re saying that’s not a reliable index? Did I get that right too? So WTF are they basing their estimates on now?

    • Henry Bauer said

      The data from antenatal clinics was used because there wasn’t anything else. When the mainstream uses those data, that’s perfectly legitimate. When Duesberg et al. use them, it’s not valid.
      As Rian Malan noted nearly a decade ago, the mainstream doesn’t need data any more because they have computer models that generate the official (UNAIDS, WHO) estimates of HIV infections and AIDS deaths.

  4. PoorYorick said


    Is it really valid to argue that because population increased during the so-called “AIDS Epidemic” that this suggests that there is no epidemic? I believe the world population grew during World War II, but that does not negate the fact that 50 million people died during this war.

    • Henry Bauer said

      The point is that official estimates were made of what an AIDS epidemic would do in South Africa,. Those quantitative estimates were coupled with estimates of how the population would grow without the claimed AIDS epidemic. The actual population growth was like the projection without the epidemic, by 2010 a population about 10% higher than it would have been had that AIDS epidemic occurred.

      The argument is not just a population increase but an increase that negates the specific projections made on the basis of HIV/AIDS theory. The theory was falsified by reality.

  5. danimal said

    how come there isn’t a wiki somewhere to try to unbiasedly detail the dissent among the dissenters. (is that why stefan lanka and root-bernstein left the group?) I read claus jensen’s critique of both chigwedere and duesberg and soon after realized jensen is aligned with perth beliefs. this dissent among the dissenters is confusing and not sure why you guys can’t get over your differences and work towards your main commonality.

    • Henry Bauer said

      The reason dissidents are not all of the same opinion is the same reason as why human beings are not all of the same opinion.

      • danimal said

        i hear you on that (thankk you for your reply) but it is troublesome when i see you guys quarreling in blog comments. I understand you guys are human and just as imperfect as the believers, but It would seem that some of you should be setting better examples of scientific inquiry. then again, who knows if the groups have been infiltrated by spys

      • Henry Bauer said


        I share your sentiment, and wish everyone concentrated on facts, on substance. Disagreements over facts and interpretations could be made in impersonal ways. But sometimes one doesn’t avoid being irritated and striking back.
        When I had made my analysis of “HIV” epidemiology and published it, I was really disappointed at the lack of interest in this direct disproof of HIV/AIDS theory. But everyone has their own pet points to make, and no one can control what others do or how they interpret what you do.

    • Guy said

      I don’t think good science is about “getting over your differences”. You call them as you see them. If you have a slightly different paradigm then you will see things slightly differently. There was an English philosopher who said something to the extent that “wisdom comes from well meaning differences among friends” (Jeremy Bentham?). Need to keep the differences friendly and as unbiased as the paradigm differences allow and eventually truth will win out.

      Based on my superficial understanding I think Dr. Duesberg believes “HIV” is a passenger virus; The Perth group is not convinced there is a virus. Does Dr. Duesberg have evidence of this virus or has he shown undeserved respect for the people who claim to have isolated it? I lean to the non-existence of HIV which is why I like to put it in quotes when I mention it. This does not reduce my respect for Dr. Duesberg and I think his opinion is always worth listening to.

      If the well funded orthodox paradigm had not already drowned out the dissidents an organized approach to AIDS might be the funding of a few projects to isolate “HIV” and show that it is the cause of AIDS. Since the paranoid orthodox paradigm requires that unproved assumption, anyone who suggests such a project would be labelled a heretic.

      • Harry said

        Where the financial interests are so huge, it is very difficult to combat against the odds and to expect to win the war, unless the social-political landscape changes drastically.

      • Henry Bauer said


        Yes indeed. That’s the problem in a nutshell. The evidence against HIV is enormous, but the powers take no notice. Part of the reason may be that there is no comparable historical precedent for medical science to have gone so wrong for so long with such enormous consequences.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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