HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Archive for the ‘HIV skepticism’ Category

Why do gay men test “HIV-positive” more frequently than others?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/03/29

AIDS was first noticed and described among gay men.

In 1984, it was concluded, officially but mistakenly, that AIDS was caused by HIV.

That AIDS is not caused by HIV follows from innumerable pieces of evidence (The Case against HIV, for example that the incidence of AIDS does not correlate with instances of “HIV-positive” (1).
Why then do gay men test “HIV-positive” more often than others?

That is of more than academic interest. If there is some inherent connection between HIV and gay men, and since AIDS is inextricably connected historically to gay men, the two connections reinforce the mistaken conventional wisdom that HIV causes AIDS.

Well: Do gay men really test “HIV-positive” more often than others?

According to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, “Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States. From 2005 to 2014, HIV diagnoses decreased in the United States by 19% overall, but increased 6% among all gay and bisexual men … . Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men made up an estimated 2% of the population but 55% of people living with HIV in the United States in 2013. If current diagnosis rates continue, 1 in 6 gay and bisexual men will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime, including 1 in 2 black/African American gay and bisexual men, 1 in 4 Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men, and 1 in 11 white gay and bisexual men” (“HIV Among Gay and Bisexual Men” [Page last updated: September 30, 2016] ).

In New Zealand, it is claimed that 1 in 15 gay and bisexual men are “HIV-positive” (New Zealand AIDS Foundation, “Three reasons gay guys are more likely to get HIV”) — the three reasons given include anal sex and the statistical likelihood of having sex with “HIV-positive” men.

A survey of global data for the years 2007-2011 reported (2) relative rates of “HIV-positive” for gay men as compared to all adults, in different regions of the world, showing consistently higher prevalence among gay men; once again the authors suggest that the greater likelihood of transmitting HIV by anal sex is the reason.

But since we know that HIV is not sexually transmitted (see section 3 in The Case against HIV), what could be the real reason for this disparity?

When greater incidence of “HIV-positive” among gay men is cited in terms of numbers found to be positive, one can suspect that it is because gay men are more likely to be tested in the first place; but no such explanation in terms of sampling bias can be invoked when the disparity appears to be in relative rates.

We know also that positive “HIV” tests are not proof of the presence of the purported retrovirus HIV; and we know that innumerable physiological circumstances may produce a “positive” result on an HIV test, see sub-section 3.2.2 in The Case against HIV). Those circumstances include many types of infections and ailments, as well as some conditions that are not ill health , say pregnancy or vaccinations, or some quite non-specific indications of perhaps quite minor threat to health, say oxidative stress.

It is not easy to see, however, why any or all of those “false positives” should be more common among gay men across cultures and regions. Perhaps anal sex, with possible tissue damage and transfer of semen, could induce release of substances reflective of physiological stress. Where antibody “HIV” tests yield an indeterminate result, it is known that heterosexual men and women tend to be reported as negative but gay men as positive. Perhaps too there is a nocebo effect: gay men have been indoctrinated to worry about “getting HIV”, and such worry is likely to be greatly exacerbated when anticipating or undergoing testing. Perhaps social persecution has also brought on average a higher rate of anxiety and somehow unhealthy living among gay men.

No combination of those possibilities seems adequate to explain the reported variations in rates, however. Moreover, as to anal sex, it is unlikely in the extreme that this is in itself notably dangerous to health: humans have been practicing anal sex for millennia, and if it were a significant risk to health, that would surely have been noticed very long ago.

Could it be that there is a biological, genetic basis for a tendency toward homosexuality? That suggestion has been ventured at times, albeit without convincing proof coming to hand as yet (3).

It is quite certain, though, that the tendency to test “HIV-positive” is strongly determined by genetics: the relative rates of testing “HIV-positive” are universally race-associated (chs. 5 & 6 in [1]), and substances taken to be characteristic of HIV are characteristic of commonly occurring human endogenous retroviruses, HERVs (4).

I find it amazing that mainstream researchers venture hand-waving non-explanations (5) for the much greater incidence of “HIV-positive” among African Americans than among white Americans, even though “risky” behavior is less among African Americans, and national rates of “HIV-positive” are highest in countries with a large proportion of people of African ancestry, namely Africa and the Caribbean. The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention has published innumerable data showing persistent and consistent variations by race, for instance (above) the rates of 1 in 11 for white Americans, 1 in 4 for Hispanics, and 1 in 2 for black Americans.

But the most likely reason why gay men test “positive” is also a major reason for the “AIDS” illnesses and deaths in the early years: INTESTINAL DYSBIOSIS; search this blog for all the posts describing this condition and confirming the plausibility of this hypothesis.

Why all this matters so much

The continuing refrain in the media about the prevalence of “HIV-positive” among gay men reinforces the mistaken notion that “HIV-positive” is dangerous to health, in particular that it presages overt illness, AIDS, and death. At the very least this strengthens the force of the mainstream dogma and makes it more difficult to present the Rethinking case. Very likely it exerts a nocebo effect that itself contributes to poor health.

It needs to be said, shouted, over and over again:

“HIV-positive” does not mean definitely ill, it does not mean infected by HIV, and anyway HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. Anyone, gay or not, who is told they are “HIV-positive”, should consult a physician who is not indoctrinated into HIV=AIDS, see Rethinking AIDS Medical Professional List.


  1. Henry H. Bauer, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, McFarland 2007.
  2. Chris Beyrer, Stefan D. Baral, Frits van Griensven, Steven M. Goodreau, Suwat Chariyalertsak, Andrea L. Wirtz & Ron Brookmeyer (2012). “Global epidemiology of HIV infection in men who have sex with men”, The Lancet,  380 (9839) 367-77.
  3. Brian P. Hanley (2011). “Dual-gender macrochimeric tissue discordance is predicted to be a significant cause of human homosexuality and transgenderism”, Hypotheses in the Life Sciences, 1 #: 63-70.
  4. Etienne de Harven (2010). “Human endogenous retroviruses and AIDS research: Confusion, consensus, or science?”, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 15: 69-74.
  5. Gregorio A. Millett, John L. Peterson, Stephen A. Flores, Trevor A. Hart, William L. Jeffries 4th, Patrick A. Wilson, Sean B. Rourke, Charles M. Heilig, Jonathan Elford, Kevin A. Fenton & Robert S Remis (2012). “Comparisons of disparities and risks of HIV infection in black and other men who have sex with men in Canada, UK, and USA: a meta-analysis”, The Lancet, 380 (9839): 341-8.

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, HIV and race, HIV as stress, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV transmission, HIV/AIDS numbers, sexual transmission, uncritical media | Tagged: | 5 Comments »

About money, and HIV in Estonia

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2016/02/12

A correspondent from Estonia shared this recent news:

Unique HIV is spreading in Estonia
Research has shown that recombined (?) [recombinant = hybrids of the known “strains”] form of HIV spreads in Estonia. People get infected locally and it is not brought in from abroad.
‘We have done more than 10 years of research and we do not have exporters [?importers?] of HIV, we do not get it from Russia or Western Europe’, says Irja Lutsar, professor of medical microbiology and virology. She added that people get infected with HIV locally and a recombined [recombinant] form of HIV is spreading here.
‘Our virus is unique but if you ask where it came from then I do not know answer to that.’”

Professor Lutsar might find some clues in de Harven’s article in Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons  as well as in The Case against HIV.

“Also, US, British and Finnish embassies here recently wrote a public letter to Estonian parliament about HIV”.

Part of that letter reads;
“The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease. Through PEPFAR, the U.S. government works with vulnerable, developing nations on a framework to combat HIV/AIDS. Since 2009, the U.S. government has committed nearly $65 billion to support PEPFAR and its global HIV/AIDS response. While gains have been real, progress against this disease, even in the United States, has been uneven.”

That inevitably brought to mind the quote attributed to the late Republican fiscal conservative, Senator Everett Dirksen:

“A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you’re talking real money”.

(As commonly with the most delightful quotes, this may be a mis-attribution)

At any rate, the United States has apparently disbursed $65 billion without anyone getting any benefit and some undoubtedly being harmed as a result of being fed toxic drugs while not only healthy but even HIV-negative.
I shouldn’t have said, of course, that no one benefited. The drug companies and their shareholders and executives have certainly benefited.


Posted in antiretroviral drugs, Funds for HIV/AIDS, HIV absurdities, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV/AIDS numbers, uncritical media | Tagged: , , | 7 Comments »

HIV/AIDS history and facts

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/08/08

Cardiac surgeon  Donald W. Miller has written a wonderfully comprehensive yet concise analysis of the genesis of HIV/AIDS and of the actual facts:

“HIV/AIDS: Unmasking Medical Falsehood…”.

It illustrates the feeling of alienation, of being relatively sane in an insane world, that I get periodically:

Who looks at evidence? Almost no one


Posted in antiretroviral drugs, consensus, experts, Funds for HIV/AIDS, global warming, HIV absurdities, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV/AIDS numbers, Legal aspects, sexual transmission, unwarranted dogmatism in science, vaccines | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »

Spam e-mail from a discredited source

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/07/18

This morning’s e-mail greeted me with this:

Murtagh spam


I don’t think I had ever corresponded with Murtagh, but the name was familiar: the Office of Medical & Scientific Justice has had dealings with him:
“he committed perjury, manipulated evidence, withheld discovery documents, and breached a settlement agreement with Emory University by impersonating Emory officials and sending defamatory emails
. . . .
Because of Murtagh’s notorious and ongoing behavior, OMSJ provides support to the website, which tracks lawsuits and will post public court documents filed on his behalf.”

I’m posting this on the presumption that many other people received this spam and may not be aware of Murtagh’s character (although the “causes” listed at the bottom of his e-mail do offer some clues).

* * * * * * * *

The “Good news!” promised in the e-mail is the attached description of the conference of the International AIDS Society in Vancouver. One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry at the talking points, for example:
“UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that the goal of having 15 million HIV-positive people on antiretroviral therapy by the end of 2015 — the so-called 15 by 15 strategy — had been achieved in March, nine months early.”
Not everyone would agree that bringing toxic medication to healthy people is necessarily always a good thing.

The chief goal now is a world free of AIDS by 2030. This too has to be sold by a snappy slogan like “15 by 15”, this time “the 90-90-90 milestone”: “90 per cent of people aware of their HIV status, 90 per cent of those infected on antiretroviral therapy, and 90 per cent of those being treated showing undetectable viral loads”.
That milestone would need to be met five years from now to make the world free in 2030.

One can only marvel at the knowledge and understanding that allows such accurate predictions decades ahead. But then Bill Gates, who surely knows almost everything about computers and therefore projections, also told us not so long ago that there would be an HIV vaccine in 15 years from now. The IAS Conference blurb does mention vaccine: The 2030 goal is only
“the virtual elimination of the AIDS pandemic. We’re not talking about eradicating HIV — HIV will remain a low-level endemic condition going forward and we will need a vaccine and we will need a cure”.
So HIV/AIDS researchers and administrators can rest assured that even when 2030 arrives, there will still be jobs and research funds for them. In the meantime, drug companies can look forward to ever-increasing revenues from antiretroviral drugs.


Posted in antiretroviral drugs, experts, HIV absurdities, HIV skepticism, HIV/AIDS numbers, uncritical media, vaccines | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

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 »