HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

HIV infectivity: high, low, or non-existent?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2016/07/31

Analysis of essentially all published results of HIV tests in the USA reveals properties unlike those of an infectious agent (The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, McFarland 2007).  In every social sector, the same regularities are seen: rates of testing positive vary by US official “racial” and ethnic classification (black >> native American > Caucasian > Asian); rates of testing positive decrease drastically from birth into the teens and increase from the late teens into middle age and then decline again; in early teens, females are more likely to be HIV+ than are males but by the 20s that is reversed (see references cited in section 3.3.5 in The Case against HIV).

In cloned HIV virions, only between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 10 million were infectious (Layne et al., “Factors underlying spontaneous inactivation and susceptibility to neutralization of human immunodeficiency virus”, Virology, 189 (1992) 695-714).

The instructions that come with HIV test kits warn that a positive test is not proof of infection.

Innumerable conditions produce HIV+ results (see references cited in section 3.2 in The Case against HIV), so all claims to have measured infectivity or transmission are at best dubious and at worst — or more accurately — meaningless. There is no valid published evidence of transmission or infectivity (see references cited in section 3.3 in The Case against HIV). The Office of Medical and Scientific Justice successfully defended more than 50 individuals charged with transmitting HIV because the prosecution could not prove HIV to be transmissible.

Researching phantoms

It can take a long time before researchers realize that they have been on a wild-goose chase, pursuing phantoms (“Phantom phantoms”, pp. 110-116 in Fatal Attractions: The Troubles with Science, Paraview Press 2001); even “an unknown phenomenon [that] towered 6 standard deviations above the mundane background of known physics — enough to satisfy a 99.9999% confidence level that it wasn’t a fluke” and that had been reported in more than a dozen experiments turned out to be non-existent.

Given that HIV/AIDS theory is wrong (The Case against HIV), observations and experiments and clinical trials will continually throw up what seem to be conundrums, which serve as the basis for yet more research. To date, mainstream HIV/AIDS researchers have failed to recognize the accumulation of conundrums and absurdities  as being in reality the hard evidence that HIV/AIDS theory is simply wrong: HIV is not infectious, and “HIV” doesn’t cause AIDS.

Mainstream science sticks to theories that had once been accepted by ignoring anomalies, conundrums, absurdities for as long as possible (Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press 1970 [2nd ed., enlarged; 1st ed. was 1962]). Things that don’t fit an existing theory are accommodated by ad hoc adjustments (Imre Lakatos, “History of science and its rational reconstruction”, pp. 1-40 in Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences, ed. Colin Howson, Cambridge University Press 1976), just as Ptolemy long maintained belief in the circular perfection of heavenly motions by adding epicycles upon epicycles, wheels within wheels, to avoid acknowledging that the movements are not really circular after all.

So too HIV/AIDS researchers create new hypotheses to bolster their belief whenever they seem unable to explain what they observe. Since all the data point to HIV not being infective, or being apparently infective to so low a degree as to be incapable of producing an epidemic, auxiliary hypotheses were suggested which have become accepted as shibboleths:

  1. The epidemic in Africa is said to have come about because of an incredible rate of promiscuity. Sexually active South Africans (black South Africans, that is) are postulated to have an average of 10 sexual partners at any give time and to change them about annually (pp. 63-65 in James Chin, The AIDS Pandemic, Radcliffe 2007).
  2. Soon after initial infection, there is an “acute phase” where large amounts of HIV are present, and intercourse during that phase makes transmission much more likely: infectivity is very high during these short periods, so overall measurements of transmissibility are deceiving.

The first suggestion is absurd, since such behavior would be so visibly evident that it could not be overlooked; yet it is not observed.

The second suggestion has been undermined by a careful re-analysis of the single study on which it had been based: the “excess hazard-months attributable to the acute phase of infection” is about 5.3, not the previously estimated 31-to-141 (Bellan et al., “Reassessment of HIV-1 acute phase infectivity: accounting for heterogeneity and study design with simulated cohorts”, PLoS Medicine, 12(3):  e1001801).

HIV/AIDS research is chasing red herrings, phantoms, in a decades-long wild-goose change that has been enormously expensive in lives and in dollars. But the interests vested in this state of affairs — drug-company profits, research careers, administrative careers, honors and awards — are so widespread and powerful that the actual evidence is given little or no chance of speaking for itself. Try to imagine what it would take for Anthony Fauci to shed cognitive dissonance and admit that he has been so disastrously wrong.


18 Responses to “HIV infectivity: high, low, or non-existent?”

  1. HIV is an essential vitamin said

    Abandon hope all ye who enter here!:

    • Henry Bauer said

      HIV is ….:

      Left hand says we’re losing, give us more money.
      Right hand says we’re winning, don’t stop giving us money: Public Broadcasting in USA aired a 6-part series, “The End of AIDS” recounting success in San Francisco, Atlanta, New York, Rwanda, Kenya, and South Africa

      • HIV is an essential vitamin said

        Either way my money-spinning scheme to supply millions of coffins to South Africa will make a killing.

      • Henry Bauer said

        HIV is….:

        South African journalist Rian Malan had not noticed Any increased death rate around him when all the official sources were proclaiming an HIV/AIDS epidemic with many deaths. So he checked with coffin makers. Their business had not improved. Official sources were just classing as AIDS deaths many deaths from the traditional scourges: malaria, TB, etc.

      • HIV is an essential vitamin said

        I saw that in one of the aids hoax documentaries. But evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. So there.

      • Henry Bauer said

        HIV is…:

        I think you’ve got it wrong: The point is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But the HIV-test data are evidence directly that “HIV” isn’t something infectious

      • HIV is an essential vitamin said

        I may have been pulling a leg there. And in the evidence of absence it may be best to assume so.

      • Henry Bauer said

        HIV is…

        WELL DONE!

  2. “The Office of Medical and Scientific Justice successfully defended more than 50 individuals charged with transmitting HIV because the prosecution could not prove HIV to be transmissible.”

    Isn’t this the scientific establishment’s Achilles heel? I mean perhaps you should consult a lawyer about how to exploit this more – could these guys sue for damages, for example?

    • Henry Bauer said

      David Bailey:

      OMSJ had lawyers doing the work, but they were closed down by legal maneuvering from sources with deep pockets.

      • HIV is an essential vitamin said

        It’s very hard to defeat a regime that has $$billions at its disposal. Unless the deceits of the matter can be seen by all anyway.

    • That is really sad – has the OMSJ gone out of business then?

      There are some awfully rich philanthropists nowadays, and I wonder if one of them could take on the cause. I mean, I have no medical training, but it is clear that something is wrong with the official story.

      I remember back in the 80’s thinking that a fatal disease that took years to show symptoms and was passed on by sex, would spread uncontrollably even if a total cure or a vaccine was discovered. I really expected swathes of people to be dying ten years on. Fortunately that didn’t happen, but it is self evident that something is wrong with the story!

      You only need to persuade one of the mega-rich, and they might fund the legal costs completely (especially if it could be done anonymously).

      • Henry Bauer said

        David Bailey:

        Yes. But the trick is to make the necessary contact. People whom everyone wants to contact have very effective barriers.

      • HIV is an essential vitamin said

        “There are some awfully rich philanthropists nowadays, and I wonder if one of them could take on the cause.”
        “You only need to persuade one of the mega-rich,”

        “Only”, haha. Almost invariably people who are mega-rich or even just rather rich, consequently believe that society is a wonderful meritocracy (hence their own success due to their hard work and talents, zilch to do with luck) and that big money establishment beliefs such as hiv-aids (and many more) are therefore safely assumed to be true. They are consequently the hardest people to get a heretic message through to (even if you can get them to hear more than a single word from you anyway, which you can’t). By contrast they will gladly hand out millions to promote hiv-aids and other big money lies. Look what a kind and generous donor I am to aids research, cancer research, promoting (pseudo)democracy in (pseudo)nasty regimes…. (flattering features in the msm media….)

  3. voza0db said

    Hello 😉

    “Try to imagine what it would take for Anthony Fauci to shed cognitive dissonance and admit that he has been so disastrously wrong.” not even a death threat.

    All of them Anthony Fauci, Robert Gallo, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, Luc Montagnier*, etc, etc, are going to die without admitting they were absolutely, and deadly (how many died due to AZT and many other toxic drugs?), wrong.

    *This one, at least, is the only one that admits that improving one’s immune system is sufficient for the body to be able to defeat the “infection”.


    • Travis said

      I would exonerate Montagnier. It seems that he got caught up in a snowball created by the CDC, NIH, and Gallo.

      He should come out with the truth and donate his Nobel Prize Medal to charity. Intrinsically, it is worth about 8K USD.

  4. Roger said

    Dear doctor
    in June 2017 I was tested for HIV and it turned out to be non-reactive. In the same month I had sex without condoms with other men. In August I had some symptoms of the acute phase of HIV infection (inflammation of the throat, glands in the neck, fever). Three weeks ago I did the HIV test again and it reacted. If the HIV virus does not exist, what contaminated me then? what happened to me is in line with the whole progression of contamination advocated by the majority of the scientific community. Who’s right? I was contaminated by which virus? I tested the mononucleosis and cytomegalovirus and were negative.

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 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: