HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Additions to Case against HIV

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/10/20

Lukas’s comments have been added to The Case against HIV

5.3.1.3 Risk of non-AIDS-related mortality may exceed risk of AIDS-related mortality among individuals enrolling into care with CD4+ counts greater than 200 cells/mm3
915.

5.3.1.4 Liver fibrosis caused by some ARVs
916.

13 Responses to “Additions to Case against HIV”

  1. lukas said

    It seems the following old paper is also not present in your work “the case against hiv”: it shows in my opinion an interesting thing that is that immune restoration is a variable independent by virological success or failure: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10202826

  2. bamainatlanta said

    How do you counter the argument that the fact that non AIDS mortality among HIV positive people exceeds AIDS mortality among them, is evidence the drugs are harsh, but effective at protecting against the onset of AIDS?

    • Henry Bauer said

      bamainatlanta:

      What is the evidence that ARVs delay the onset of AIDS? Most people don’t get ARVs until they are classified as having AIDS. People classified as having AIDS die from non-AIDS conditions more often than from AIDS-conditions. The ARVs kill them.
      Anyone who doubts the toxicity of ARVs need only read the Treatment Guidelines. Even more informative is to read thr successive editions of those Guidelines and note how once-approved ARVs get disapproved as the years go by.

    • ARVs are a chemical blunderbuss.

      Some ARV drugs will work on some people. Why so many ARV drugs for one little ‘ol virus? Why do they stop working & people get moved onto others?

      A chemical blunderbuss is not science. It is trial-and-error, let’s throw everything at this disease.

      Since single therapy should logically have worked but didn’t, don’t tell me they understand when and how multiple different triple therapies work (for some short-term definition of “work”).

  3. Duncan said

    Assuming that HIV tests may produce a false positive in cases where the individual has a history of TB what then should the individual do in order to clarify whether they have HIV infection or not? Are ELISA and Western Blot tests, in 2015, still subject to false positive reactions from the antibodies of a TB infection? If so the key question then becomes if individuals are told they have a positive ELISA and Western Blot and therefore HIV, they are advised by the medical profession to commence ART and so go down the path of standard medical treatment for the HIV infection. So what can an individual in such a situation do to ‘prove’ that the testing they have undergone has produced a false positive due to their history of TB and is not a true, accurate and reliable confirmation of them having an HIV infection? That is, it is fine to say that ELISA and Western Blot may be unreliable in such cases but how does one prove this? How can a false positive Western Blot be demonstrated to be a false positive? I would be most grateful for any information on this question and for any information on HIV/infectious disease medical specialists who are willing to review patients in such circumstances and to give an opinion that a false positive has occurred. Thank you.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Duncan:
      Nothing has happened to make the “HIV” tests accurate indicators of infection by “HIV”. I do not believe that the very existence of “HIV” has ever been established, so that ALL “HIV+” results are FALSE POSITIVES.

      The Case against HIV http://thecaseagainsthiv.net
      is a documented survey of the literature that demonstrates that “HIV” doesn’t cause illness even though it may be associated with a large number of conditions including illnesses, and especially TB.

      The conundrum for individuals is how to receive appropriate medical treatment when almost all doctors are misinformed about “HIV”. http://www.resistanceisfruitful.com/blog/ may be a useful resource, by a man who is grappling with this dilemma. Another such source is Questioning AIDS http://www.questioningaids.com/

      http://rethinkingaids.com/ provides up-to-date commentaries and news items by an organization of individuals like myself who are sure that the mainstream dogma of HIV = AIDS is wrong.

  4. Dr. Bauer.

    I thought you might be interested in this. It is tangentially related to HIV theory (or the origins of “HIV”).

    http://www.aidsorigins.com/sites/all/files/pdfs/lincei/hooper03.pdf

    It’s long.

    You may have come across Hooper before. I hadn’t.
    http://www.aidsorigins.com/biography

    • Henry Bauer said

      jameslovelace:
      Thanks for the links. I was aware of Hooper’s views, but hadn’t delved too deeply into them

  5. lukas said

    new article on arvs related deadly hepatoxicity: http://www.aidsmap.com/DAD-study-long-term-treatment-with-tenofovir-associated-with-increased-risk-of-serious-liver-disease/page/3028513/

  6. lukas said

    this article affirms a previous aids defining cancer to be caused by antiretrovirals by saying its incidence has increased “since the advent of combination antiretroviral therapy and it is triggered by immune recostitution syndrome” http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/118/1/44?sso-checked=true

  7. lukas said

    now mainstream is saying that taking arvs every day is excessive,the dosage can be cut to half weekly: http://www.aidsmap.com/Atripla-three-times-weekly-maintains-HIV-viral-suppression-for-24-weeks/page/3068737/ They took 35 years to say that,what will they say in the next 35 years?

  8. lukas said

    Mr Bauer,A new paper,appeared few months ago, looks at the incidence of non aids cancers in hiv positive people and make comparison with its presence in hiv negatives: http://www.aidsmap.com/People-diagnosed-with-AIDS-have-increased-risk-of-death-due-to-non-AIDS-related-cancers/page/3057835/ Considering that to me is totally absurd that a retrovirus to be the cause of all diseases included in the anilysys,either in aids or non aids group (lung cancer,melanoma,leukemia,…) i make the following remarks.1)For the first time i see mentioned cofactors such as “lifestyle related cancers” that means hiv is not anymore sufficient to cause aids?2)The article states that :”. People diagnosed with AIDS with a history of injecting drug use had especially high excess mortality due to non-AIDS-related cancers.”. 2)Are they affirming that Duesberg’s theory of drug induced aids,that was previously ridiculed is now correct and mainstream was wrong?The article states that “Excess mortality among AIDS patients compared to non-AIDS patients was estimated using sex- and age-adjusted standardised mortality ratios (SMRs).”3) As soon as aids patients are expected to die also from hiv external causes,they shouldn’t have compared hiv-aids patients with general population as the article seem to claim to me,but hiv patients with population presenting the same cofactors of hiv positive,and not taking hiv as the main parameter?4)they don’t consider people at initial stage of infection but people presenting with aids,but couldn’t they have turned into aids for different reasons than hiv(since cofactors are also taken in consideration)?Thank you for your attention

    • Henry Bauer said

      lukas:
      Here’s the abstract of the journal article:

      Background. Non-AIDS defining cancers (non-ADCs) have become the leading non-AIDS-related cause of death among people with HIV/AIDS. We aimed to quantify the excess risk of cancer-related deaths among Italian people with AIDS (PWA), as compared to people without AIDS (non-PWA).
      Methods. A nationwide, population-based, retrospective cohort study was carried out among 5285 Italian PWA, aged 15-74 years, diagnosed between 2006 and 2011. Date of death and multiple-cause-of-death (MCoD) data were retrieved up to December 2011. Excess mortality, as compared to non-PWA, was estimated using sex- and age-standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
      Results. Among 1229 deceased PWA, 10.3% reported non-ADCs in the death certificate, including lung (3.1%) and liver (1.4%) cancers. A 7.3-fold (95% CI: 6.1-8.7) excess mortality was observed for all non-ADCs combined. Statistically significant SMRs emerged for specific non-ADCs, i.e., anus (5 deaths, SMR=227.6, 95% CI: 73.9-531.0), Hodgkin lymphoma (12 deaths, SMR=122.0, 95% CI: 63.0-213.0), unspecified uterus (4 deaths, SMR=52.5, 95% CI: 14.3-135.0, liver (17 deaths, SMR=13.2, 95% CI: 7.7-21.1), skin melanoma (4 deaths, SMR=10.9, 95% CI: 3.0-27.8), lung (38 deaths, SMR=8.0, 95% CI: 5.7-11.0), head and neck (9 deaths, SMR=7.8, 95% CI: 3.6-14.9), leukemia (5 deaths, SMR=7.6, 95% CI: 2.4-17.7), and colon-rectum (10 deaths, SMR=5.4, 95% CI: 2.6-10.0). SMRs for non-ADCs were particularly elevated among PWA infected through injecting drug use.
      Conclusion. This population-based study documented extremely elevated risks of death for non-ADCs among PWA. These findings stress the need of preventive interventions for both virus-related and non virus-related cancers among HIV-infected individuals.

      We know that many physiological conditions cause an HIV+ test-result. This article seems not to distinguish between “AIDS” and “HIV+”. So a feasible interpretation of these results is that many cancers are associated with an HIV+ response, especially in those who are most sick. And of course those who inject drugs are on average more sick than people who do not.
      Your comments are very pertinent.

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