HIV/AIDS Skepticism

53c5db81627a583e1bbf Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

Archive for the ‘HIV skepticism’ Category

Elsevier strikes again: Predator or merely parasite?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/05/04

According to the doubtfully reliable Wikipedia, “Elsevier B.V. . . . is an academic publishing company that publishes medical and scientific literature. It is a part of the Reed Elsevier group” which is “an Anglo-Dutch multinational publishing and information company co-headquartered in London, United Kingdom and Amsterdam, Netherlands. It operates in the science, medical, legal, risk, marketing, financial, and business sectors”.

Actually, Elsevier is strictly in the business of making money, not of providing information, and its activities have included MISinforming or DISinforming, as illustrated by these actions:

⇒ Elsevier put out a number of medical-company advertisements masquerading as professional medical journals — “Elsevier published 6 fake journals”; “Merck published fake journal”.

⇒ Elsevier took over and soon destroyed Medical Hypotheses, after having withdrawn an article that corrected a published error: It was claimed that there had been 300,00 AIDS deaths per year in South Africa, whereas the official count was reported by Statistics South Africa as about 15,000 — “Censored by Elsevier”; “Public Health Service of Italy accepts work of Ruggiero et al.”; Chapter 3 in Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth (McFarland 2012).

⇒ Now Elsevier is in the process of doing its destructive work on the Medical Journal of Australia: “Editor of Medical Journal of Australia fired after criticizing decision to outsource to Elsevier”.

The decision-makers at the company that controls the Medical Journal of Australia do not understand — as the Journal’s now-fired editor does —that the such “technical” matters as the procedures by which articles are submitted, the “infrastructure”, is inseparable from editorial matters. It determines how the Journal presents itself to prospective authors.
My own experience of publishing in an Elsevier journal can best be described as intense frustration at unnecessary complications: creating accounts, navigating ambiguous web pages, filling out numerous forms, putting up with inept computerese — all these only because Elsevier is so anxious to make profits, charging exorbitantly for reprints and requiring authors to pledge not to make copies of their own work available freely to others. Elsevier, not the author of an article, takes the copyright to articles in the journals it publishes. It does not forbid authors from sharing PREprints with the rest of the scientific community, but “Preprints should not be added to or enhanced in any way in order to appear more like, or to substitute for, the final versions of articles”, so that prospective readers will need to access articles via libraries that subscribe — at exorbitant rates — to Elsevier publications, or via reprints supplied to authors at outlandishly exorbitant charges: the article I published runs to 5 pages, and reprints would have cost me $220 for 100 (minimum order), decreasing per copy to $400 for 400 — for the economy version without covers; the deluxe off-prints with covers would have cost $430 for the minimum 100 (but less per copy for more, e.g. “only” $925 for 400). As everyone knows, once something has been printed, there is negligible marginal cost in running off any number of extra copies.

⇒ The exorbitant charges that bring Elsevier extraordinary profit margin led mathematicians to organize a boycott of Elsevier journals: “Why are we boycotting Elsevier?”; “Mathematicians organize boycott of a publisher”; “Scientists sign petition to boycott academic publisher Elsevier”; “Why Elsevier?”;  “The Elsevier boycott one year on”.
In 2010, on revenues of ~$3.2 billion, Elsevier’s profit was 36% (“Why scientists are boycotting a publisher”, Boston Globe, February 2012). Such a profit margin will make jealous even the racketeering Rx-drug industry (Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare by Peter C. Gøtzsche).

⇒ The possibility of cheap online publishing has brought an explosion of hundreds if not thousands of “journals” that librarian Jeffrey Beall has described as “predatory” since they offer nothing but opportunity for anyone to get published in “academic journals” if they can pay for it.
Beall’s survey of predatory publishers lists 693 in 2015, up from 18 in 2011, 23 in 2012, 225 in 2013, and 477 in 2014.
Is Elsevier not also predatory in the same way? It too offers authors online “open access” publishing for supposed more and quicker exposure, for a price: “Fees range between $500 and $5,000 US Dollars depending on the journal”.
And Elsevier too is responsible for the explosive growth in numbers of journals. In 1991, Elsevier took over the prestigious British journal THE LANCET. But prestige alone evidently doesn’t bring in enough money, so Elsevier has traded on The Lancet brand to proliferate publications: The Lancet Oncology since 2000, The Lancet Infectious Diseases since 2001, The Lancet Neurology since 2002; in 2013 were added The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, The Lancet Global Health, and The Lancet Respiratory Medicine; in 2014, The Lancet HIV.

Posted in HIV skepticism, prejudice, uncritical media | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

HIV/AIDS Theory is dogmatically wrong

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/04/29

Alex Tsakiris of Skeptiko interviews Dr. Henry Bauer, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science and author of Dogmatism in Science and Medicine, about scientific research and its dogmatic assertions. 

Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Dr. Henry Bauer to discuss the misleading claims of scientific research such as the statistics on HIV-AIDS”.

A synopsis of this interview and link to listen to the whole interview is now available as no. 273 at the Skeptiko website.

 

Posted in HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism | Tagged: | 4 Comments »

Highest Military Court rules HIV not likely to be spread through unprotected sex

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/03/31

A few weeks ago I reported (HIV/AIDS theory cannot stand up in court) the wonderful victory achieved by the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice in convincing the Military Court of Appeal that the risk of transmitting “HIV” through sexual intercourse is negligible. Here is a Press Release sent out by Joan Shenton in Britain that gives a fuller report and analysis of the significance:

Court of Appeals rules HIV not likely to be spread through unprotected sex
2015-03-30

March 30, 2015, London, UK. Press Dispensary. In a landmark legal case that has received little attention outside the United States, the highest military court in the US recently overturned decades of judgements regarding the likelihood of spreading HIV through unprotected sex.

In late February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) unanimously threw out a 2011 conviction against a US airman, Sergeant David Gutierrez of Kansas, for committing “aggravated assault” when exposing multiple sex partners to HIV at swinger parties in Wichita. According to defence attorney Kevin McDermott, the decision reversed a 25-year precedent that had allowed military personnel to be convicted of aggravated assault solely on the basis of a positive HIV test.

“The key to the decision was that the convicted airman was not accused of actually infecting anyone with HIV, only of having had sex with them after a positive HIV test, and his conviction was overturned because the US government could not prove that any of his acts were likely to transmit HIV to his partners. The second highest court in America has unanimously rubbished the myth that being found HIV positive makes someone an automatic risk to others.”

So said Joan Shenton, London-based author of the recently republished anniversary edition of the book “Positively False – Exposing the Myths around HIV and AIDS”.

Shenton continued: “The US government was unable to prove a likelihood that an HIV person is a risk, even during unprotected sex, because there is no proof. And if the transmission of HIV is now in such doubt, the entire edifice of the infectious hypothesis for AIDS will surely come tumbling down.”

Positively False

Positively False – 16th Anniversary Edition

The absence of any definitive medical evidence about HIV transmission was highlighted when defence lawyers argued the risk ranged from a 1-in-10,000 to 1-in-100,000 chance per sexual encounter and prosecutors countered that the exposure risk was closer to 1 in 500. The court determined that even if the risk were 1 in 500, transmission of the disease was not “likely” to occur.

Clark Baker, of the Office of Medical Science and Justice (OMSJ), which was the driving force behind Sergeant Gutierrez’s appeal, said this week:
“While gratified that the highest US military court unanimously agrees that HIV does not pose the existential threat claimed by government-funded propagandists, I am sickened by the millions of innocents around the world whose lives have been destroyed by this $400 billion marketing scam to promote unreliable tests to sell deadly HIV drugs. This ruling is long overdue.”

David Crowe, president of Rethinking AIDS, said this week:
“HIV is the only disease to be highly criminalized in the modern era. If courts truly believed in ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, they would not rely on tests that produce false positives that cannot be eliminated, nor on biased analyses that cannot tell the direction of transmission, but do set juries in the direction of conviction. Society talks about privacy of an HIV diagnosis, but then mandates that all HIV+ people reveal their status, unless they want to remain celibate for life while still facing the likelihood of isolation, prejudice and violence if their status becomes public.”

Dr Christian Fiala, medical director of the Gynmed clinic in Vienna, added this week:
“This ruling confirms what is evident from all epidemiological and medical studies: there is no heterosexual transmission of HIV or any illness labelled as AIDS. This ruling also takes into consideration the fundamental problems and contradictions of the HIV test and the definition of AIDS, which has been changed several times over the last 30 years and which is very different in different countries. Even the manufacturer of the HIV test states ‘At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence of absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.’*

“It is now up to other courts and governments to recognize the clear evidence and to stop terrorizing those who are labelled HIV positive.”

Joan Shenton concluded:
“For everyone who has long argued that those found HIV positive are not automatically guilty of some heinous crime if they have unprotected sex, this is one of the most significant court judgements in years, particularly as it was a unanimous verdict from the highest military court in the US. Potentially it unlocks the shackles for millions of people worldwide who have been declared HIV positive.”

Joan Shenton’s seminal book, “Positively False – Exposing the Myths around HIV and AIDS”, was first published in 1998. The thoroughly updated anniversary edition was launched at London’s Frontline Club in February, together with a new film, Positive Hell. Both are raising the temperature once more on the HIV and AIDS controversy.

* See Abbott Laboratories Package Insert – http://aidswiki.net/documents/AbbottHIVEIA.pdf Page 6, under Sensitivity and Specificity.

– ends –

Notes for editors
The full ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces was decided on February 23, 2015, and may be downloaded as a PDF: http://www.omsj.org/cases/2010/Gutierrez/2015/ruling2015.pdf

Joan Shenton
Joan Shenton has extensive experience of producing and presenting television and radio programmes, including many peak time network documentaries for the BBC, Channel 4, Central TV, and Thames TV.

Her independent production company Meditel Productions has won seven television awards and was the first independent company ever to win a Royal Television Society Award for an episode of Channel 4’s Dispatches. It has produced eight network documentaries for Channel 4, Sky News and M-Net, South Africa on the AIDS debate. “AIDS – The Unheard Voices” won the Royal Television Society Award for Current Affairs.

Her book Positively False – Exposing the Myths around HIV and AIDS was originally published by I.B. Tauris in 1998 and is now not only reprinted but updated, including contributions from 20 leading dissident scientists and journalists, plus Peter Duesberg et al.’s withdrawn 2009 paper for Medical Hypothesis and the script of the film Positively False.

Positively False – Birth of a Heresy, a 90 minute documentary co-produced with director Andi Reiss, was nominated for best documentary at Lucerne and Marbella international film festivals.

David Crowe
David Crowe HSBC (Hons), biology/mathematics, is president of Rethinking AIDS, and founder and president of the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society.

Clark Baker
Clark Baker is CEO and Principal Investigator at the Office of Medical Science and Justice (OMSJ) and is based in Los Angeles.

Having conducted thousands of criminal and civil investigations since 1980 with the LAPD and as a licensed investigator, Mr. Baker founded OMSJ in 2009 after witnessing the reluctance of government agencies and research centres to investigate allegations related to medical and scientific corruption (aka junk science).

Mr. Baker has earned more than eighty commendations from local, state and federal officials.
http://www.omsj.org

Dr Christian Fiala
Christian Fiala is a specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology. He is medical director of the Gynmed clinic in Vienna.
Positively False
POSITIVELY FALSE – Exposing the Myths around HIV and AIDS
16th anniversary edition by Joan Shenton
Print ISBN 9781503030886

Available in paperback and Kindle from Amazon. Visit www.positivelyfalsebook.com for links.

Posted in experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV transmission, Legal aspects, sexual transmission | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Blind leading the blind: drugs, needles, “HIV”

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/03/29

Three decades ago, John Lauritsen pointed out that the way in which the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) categorized AIDS patients was fatally misleading, masking the plain fact that the chief “risk group” comprised drug addicts. A decade earlier, Gordon Stewart had observed the symptoms of ill health typical among drug abusers to include opportunistic infections — much the same as those of “AIDS” sufferers.

But the disaster of HIV/AIDS theory ascribes the ill health to “HIV” instead of to the drugs, leading to official promotion of needle-exchange programs: giving drug injectors clean needles to use so that they will not spreads the putative virus among themselves by sharing “infected” needles.

As it happens, actual follow-up has demonstrated that needle-exchange programs tend to increase rather than decrease the incidence of “HIV-positive”.

But official statements continue to claim the opposite of what the evidence shows. Part of the reason is that official statements are typically composed by specialist writers, public-relations personnel, who are indoctrinated to the same beliefs as the general public and whose jobs do not include familiarity with the technical literature: Official reports are not scientific documents (chapter 8 in Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth, McFarland 2012) . Consequently, ABC News can report what it learns “from the CDC” as “Answers to common questions about HIV, needles and drug use”:

“WHAT ROLE DO DIRTY NEEDLES PLAY IN HIV?

HIV is a blood-borne infection, spread mostly through sex. Intravenous drug users, who sometimes share dirty syringes, account for 8 percent of new HIV infections and 16 percent of people currently living with HIV in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The good news is there’s been progress in curbing infections, largely because of needle-exchange and drug-treatment programs. New HIV infections among drug users dropped from a peak of nearly 35,000 annually in the late 1980s to 3,900 in 2010, the CDC says.

———

WHAT’S THE LEGAL STATUS OF NEEDLE EXCHANGES?

Laws criminalizing possession and distribution of syringes have been removed or relaxed in 26 states and the District of Columbia, according to the public health law research program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia explicitly authorize syringe exchange.

Congress does not allow for the use of CDC funds to pay for syringe-exchange programs. In 2011, a formal determination by the surgeon general permitted spending federal block grant money on syringe programs.

———

WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH SAY?

Multiple studies have found that needle-exchange programs reduce needle sharing and the risk of HIV transmission. Studies have also shown the programs promote drug addicts to get into treatment.”

 

Relying on “scientific” advice, the Republican Governor of Indiana, Mike Spence, has allowed a needle-exchange program after an “epidemic” of “HIV” among injecting drug abusers (Indiana HIV outbreak reaches ‘epidemic proportions’).

Spence is opposed in principle to needle exchanges, understanding that it does not serve the health of individuals or the public to abet drug abuse. But such is the status and prestige of “Science”, and such is the confusion between actual scientific knowledge and what is put out by bureaucracies, that his common sense and sense of morality bowed to the “experts”.

In the “epidemic” in Scott County IN, “the vast majority of the people who’ve become infected during the outbreak shared a syringe with someone else while injecting a liquid form of the prescription painkiller Opana” (Indiana to declare public health emergency over HIV outbreak tied to IV drug use).

The real explanation of what happened, of course, is that Opana conduces to testing “HIV-positive”; innumerable things that conduce to testing “HIV-positive” (section 3.2 in The Case against HIV ).

Posted in experts, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV transmission, uncritical media | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

HIV/AIDS theory cannot stand up in court

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/03/05

That is to say, it cannot stand up in court if lawyers know what they are doing; and they can know what they are doing if they have the assistance of the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice (OMSJ).

Several earlier blog posts have reported successful outcomes as a result of OMSJ intervention. Now they have won a case that is likely to have far-reaching consequences.

The story began 4 years ago: “Sex, Lies, Vaccines and the Destruction of Sgt. David Gutierrez”. Finally something very good has come out of it: “OMSJ: Military Appeals Court Overturns HIV Conviction”.

Hear from the lead attorney about the significance of this victory: “Just like that, about 25 years of risking an ‘aggravated assault’ or similar charge for not informing a sexual partner that you’re ‘HIV positive’ are effectively over. On February 23, 2015, the highest U.S. military court judged the risk of contracting ‘HIV’ from sex as so low that it is no longer a serious crime not to tell sexual partners”.

The facts have been crystal clear for a long time, that HIV/AIDS theory is bankrupt and has done and continues to do enormous damage to innumerable people (The Case against HIV). But people cannot be forced to look at or admit facts — except (at least sometimes) in court, where HIV/AIDS experts can be cross-examined and their misguided beliefs exposed as such.

When the era of HIV/AIDS finally ends, enormous credit will be owing to the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice.

Posted in HIV skepticism, Legal aspects, sexual transmission | Tagged: , , , | 9 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 118 other followers