HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Archive for the ‘HIV tests’ Category

Superb accuracy (99.8%) of HIV tests in Britain

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/03/14

A correspondent in Britain sent me this e-mail:

“These jokers do a “99.8% accurate” hiv test:

plus a “confirmation” test of hiv
(Vidas HIV1/HIV2 Duo Quick, Bispot Immunocomb HIV1/HIV2, Determine HIV1&2)

Are they lying?!”


I wrote direct to the responsible (?) organization and received this enlightening response:


“Dear Dr Bauer,
Thank you for your enquiry.
Information regarding the tests and accuracy comes from the laboratory, we send our samples to the largest laboratory in the UK which has all the necessary accreditations.
If you require further information or have any questions or queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Kind regards,
Emma Musson
Patient Services Ltd
Navigation House
48 Mill Gate
NG24 4TS

t +44 (0) 1636 640195
f +44 (0) 1636 640218


follow us on Twitter 

join our FaceBook community


It’s certainly reassuring that MediChecks relies on “the largest laboratory in the UK which has all the necessary accreditations”. I leave it to any interested others to look into further details of that lab, which I would guess is a commercial entity.

Posted in experts, HIV tests | Tagged: , | 4 Comments »

More innocent victims of HIV/AIDS witch-hunt mania

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/12/30

It’s been known for more than a couple of decades that a positive “HIV” test can result from dozens of conditions, some of them diseases, others not — section 3.2.2 in The Case against HIV.

At least, it’s been known to people who are familiar with the peer-reviewed literature. That doesn’t include huge swaths of health-care-associated people and institutions. So when someone tests “HIV-positive”, the ignorant conclusion is almost invariably drawn that the unfortunate “HIV-positive” person has been infected in some way; and if sexual intercourse seems impossible, then it must be through dirty needles — even though peer-reviewed studies have shown that using fresh needles conduces to more prevalence of “HIV-positive”, not less (section 3.3.8 in The Case against HIV).

Innumerable absurdities have damaged innumerable individuals and groups because “HIV-positive” is taken as proof of infection: an 18-month-old baby is infected despite the absence of all possible modes of infection (Immaculate infection by HIV). I’ve noted many other absurdities (159 posts are currently in the “HIV absurdities” category on this blog), for example Spontaneously generated HIV; Youngest person sexually infected with HIV? How are pre-teens infected?; World AIDS Day: Black Stars and “life-saving” HAART; Spontaneous generation of “HIV”.

A striking example has just been reported by the Sydney Morning Herald:
“A four-year-old girl is the latest of more than 200 residents of a remote Cambodian village who have tested positive for HIV, baffling health officials. . . .
more than 200 of the 1700 people . . . have tested positive for HIV since testing began early in December. Residents panicked and rushed to be tested after a 74-year-old man inexplicably tested positive . . . . [and] two women aged 81 and 83 . . . .
all possible causes of HIV transmission were being considered
[but of course none of the many possible causes NOT resulting from “transmission”; after all, some quite common infections like flu, tuberculosis, malaria, can conduce to positive “HIV” tests; so can some vaccinations, very pertinent when “HIV” infection via needles is being alleged]
. . . Cambodian officials have pointed the finger at an unlicensed Cambodian doctor who has admitted re-using needles and syringes on patients. . . .
Cambodian authorities have charged the unlicensed doctor Yem Chhrin, 55, who had practised in the commune for 21 years, with committing murder with a ‘cruel act’. He faces a sentence of life imprisonment if convicted.”

Cambodia, and especially Yem Chhrin, badly need a branch of Clark Baker’s Office of Medical and Scientific Justice.

Posted in HIV absurdities, HIV in children, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV transmission, Legal aspects | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/07/27

The mainstream literature reveals quite clearly that essentially nothing is known or understood about “HIV” or about “AIDS”; but to appreciate these revelations one must be prepared sometimes to read more or less between the lines.

A fine opportunity for that was provided by the recent 20th International AIDS Conference. The lack of knowledge is not admitted overtly but it clearly underlies what the HIV/AIDS protagonists regard as grist for further research funding. For example, When will there be a cure?
“‘We have plenty of data telling us we can make progress,’ said Françoise Barré-Sinoussi . . . . But she’s not foolish enough to give a timetable. She recalled predictions in the mid-1980s that a vaccine would be relatively simple to design. As of now, of course, there is still no vaccine even close to clinical availability.”

30 years of promises, announced breakthroughs later retracted, and other “progress” haven’t gotten anywhere.

What needs to be known?
“Which cells are targets? How do they work? Are there antibodies that can be manipulated? How? What cells can harbor latent HIV? Can they be located and destroyed?”

“[W]e don’t know how to eradicate the virus. We don’t know all its hiding places. And we don’t have good tools to measure it even in the hiding places we know about.”

And of course the central question remains, how on Earth “HIV” is supposed to destroy the immune system. No credible mechanism has been discovered during these 30+ years (section 1.3 in The Case against HIV).

One doesn’t know whether to laugh or to cry in recalling Robert Gallo’s assertion a couple of decades ago: “We probably know more about how HIV produces its pathology than
about the pathological mechanism of virtually any other microbe” (p. 296 in Virus Hunting: AIDS, Cancer, and the Human Retrovirus: A Story of Scientific Discovery, 1991).

As to the Mississippi baby that had been thought to have been cured by massive antiretroviral treatment starting at birth, a couple of years later she was found to be still (or again!?) “infected”. More conundrums:
Ø The child had no detectable immune response to HIV before the rebound. What was keeping the virus at bay?
Ø Sensitive tests could find no latent virus. Where was HIV hiding?
Ø What triggered the rebound?

Dissidents, of course, DO understand what’s going on. There’s no such thing as “HIV infection”. “HIV+” is a very non-specific biomarker for a number of conditions, chiefly those associated with weakened immune systems involving CD4 cells; but not only those: for example, pregnancy is a “risk factor” for testing “HIV+” (section in The Case against HIV).

HIV/AIDS theory rests on the ignorant mistake that is so prevalent, notably in medical “research”: confusing an association with a causal relationship. “AIDS” victims often tested “HIV+” because some or many of the conditions umbrella’d under “AIDS” are associated with weakened immune systems and the propensity to test “HIV+”.

By construing positive tests as signs of infection, mainstream researchers are chasing phantoms, inevitably turning up conundrums and mysteries and enigmas, endlessly chasing red herrings and wild geese. Browse the rich crop of absurdities generated in this way.

Nothing about HIV/AIDS theory makes sense or fits the evidence, but the mainstream continues its insane pursuits: insane because they keep repeating the same blunder-based activities and expecting that somehow there will be a different result, that understanding instead of conundrums will somehow pop up.


Posted in experts, HIV absurdities, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, uncritical media, vaccines | Tagged: | 15 Comments »

The HIV assault on women and children

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/03/31

“HIV” tests do not detect an infectious agent (section 3.1 in The Case against HIV).

Innumerable conditions cause “false positives” (section 3.2 in The Case against HIV), notably pregnancy.
Transmission of “HIV” from mother to child, dogmatically accepted in mainstream practice, has never been proven actually to occur (section 3.3.4 in The Case against HIV).

Despite these facts, pregnant women are routinely subjected to “HIV” tests, and if “HIV-positive” they and their babies are then forced to take highly toxic antiretroviral drugs whose “side” effects are legion and highly damaging (section 5.3 in The Case against HIV); babies, even if drugged for only a short period, are likely to suffer permanently because antiretroviral drugs cause irreparable damage to mitochondria (section in The Case against HIV).

In most places, laws and social workers and health-care workers make it impossible for women to fend off these damaging assaults on themselves and their children. Sometimes the children are even taken away from their parents if the latter try to resist having their children poisoned.

Graphic personal stories of several such women are presented in the recent documentary, I won’t go quietly. Short  and  long trailers can be viewed on YouTube.

Fanatical ideologies and willful ignorance
are WMDs — weapons of mass destruction
that are politically and socially countenanced and wielded.

HIV/AIDS theory is a fanatical ideology,
and willful ignorance is exemplified
by the dogmatic acceptance of “HIV-positive”
as indicating infection by a fatal retrovirus
and the refusal to recognize healthy pregnancy
as a risk factor for testing “HIV-positive”.

“HIV” testing constitutes a WMD directed at everyone,
but affecting prominently all women and children.

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, HIV in children, HIV risk groups, HIV tests, HIV transmission, Legal aspects | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Race, HIV, media pundits

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/03/09

People carrying black-African genes test “HIV-positive” at far greater rates than do people without that genetic ancestry. HIV/AIDS theory “explains” that by postulating greater rates of careless “not-safe-sex” promiscuity and infected-needle-sharing drug injection. Thereby HIV/AIDS theory postulates significant genetic determination of behavior, which in other contexts is dismissed as pseudo-science.

Moreover, actual observations and studies have repeatedly shown that the facts vitiate that proposed “explanation”: Africans and African-Americans indulge in risky behavior at lower rates than do white Americans (pp. 77-9 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).
The conclusion is inescapable: HIV/AIDS theory is radically wrong about how “HIV-positive” is transmitted.

But that inescapable conclusion continues to escape mainstream practitioners and researchers and such media pundits as Donald G. McNeil Jr. of the New York Times (Poor Black and Hispanic men are the face of H.I.V.):

“The AIDS epidemic in America is rapidly becoming concentrated among poor, young black and Hispanic men who have sex with men”
NO. There’s nothing recent or rapid about it. The racial disparities have always been there (Chapters 5 & 6 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).
Furthermore, it is black WOMEN who are most affected compared to others, 20 times more likely to be “HIV-positive” than white women, whereas for males the ratio is (“only”) 7.

“Nationally, 25 percent of new infections are in black and Hispanic men, and in New York City it is 45 percent”
Yes, of course, because it’s blackness that contributes overwhelmingly to testing “HIV-positive”. Hispanics in New York are primarily of black Caribbean-African stock, whereas West-Coast Hispanics are largely non-black, of Latin-American stock. Therefore national-average rates of “HIV-positive” among Hispanics are lower than East-Coast Hispanic rates of “HIV-positive” (pp. 57-8, 71-2 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).

“Nationally, when only men under 25 infected through gay sex are counted, 80 percent are black or Hispanic — even though they engage in less high-risk behavior than their white peers” [emphasis added]; “a male-male sex act for a young black American is eight times as likely to end in H.I.V. infection as it is for his white peers. That is true even though, on average, black youths in the study took fewer risks than their white peers: they had fewer partners, engaged in fewer acts of sex while drunk or high, and used condoms more often”.
So McNeil is even aware of this conundrum which falsifies the central axiom of HIV/AIDS theory, namely, that HIV is transmitted as a result of risky behavior. Yet he does not follow this statement of fact with any explanation of this paradox which contradicts and falsifies mainstream views.
Instead, McNeil passes on without comment the usual meaningless weasel-words about some unspecified “intervention”:
“Critics say little is being done to save this group, and none of it with any great urgency. ‘There wasn’t even an ad campaign aimed at young black men until last year — what’s that about?’. Phill Wilson, president of the Black AIDS Institute in Los Angeles, said there were ‘no models out there right now for reaching these men’”.
What conceivable use could any models be, when it’s acknowledged that these supposedly at-high-risk people already practice less risky behavior than the no-high-risk white folk?
Still, of course there’s no harm in asking for more money even in absence of any clue what to do with it:
“With more resources, we could make bigger strides”.

What the mainstream says about the high rates of black “HIV-positives” is pitifully, woefully inadequate; it misses the whole point. It suggests that although their behavior is less risky, black folk have “other risk factors. Lacking health insurance, they were less likely to have seen doctors regularly and more likely to have syphilis, which creates a path for H.I.V.”
But it’s yet another counterfactual canard that syphilis and other STDs make it more likely that someone will “contract” “HIV”, i.e. become “HIV-positive”: there is simply no correlation between incidence of STDs and of “HIV” (pp. 31-5, 109 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).
As to insurance, what is the evidence that having health insurance makes for lower rates of being or becoming “HIV-positive”? This is simply hand-waving bullshit* emitted because no sensible explanation can be offered.
As to seeing doctors regularly, what is the evidence that seeing doctors regularly makes for lower rates of being or becoming “HIV-positive”? Quite the opposite, in fact: The largely white gay men who first contracted “AIDS” had mostly been seeing doctors very often because of their constant need for treatment after suffering all sorts of illnesses. Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, with a practice of largely gay clients in New York in the 1970s, had in fact warned his regular customers that if they did not change their lifestyle something drastic and awful would befall them.

And then, “Other risk factors include depression and fatalism” — What, pray, is the mechanism by which those conditions produce “HIV-positive”? Among people who are acknowledged to behave less riskily than those who are not at high risk of becoming “HIV-positive”?

Another popular non-explanation is that blacks become “HIV-positive” more often because “HIV-positive” is so much more common in the black community: It’s more common because it’s more common.

I cannot imagine a higher degree of hypocrisy, intellectual vapidity, sheer unwillingness to draw obvious conclusions from undisputed facts, than is demonstrated without fail and without end by mainstream researchers, doctors, and pundits when confronted with the plain fact that blackness makes for being “HIV-positive”.

Not that this perverse behavior is much different from behaving as though testing “HIV-positive” proved infection by “HIV” when standard authorities have long stated quite forthrightly that there is no gold standard “HIV” test, no test capable of demonstrating actual infection by “HIV”, and that the rates of false positives are inevitably high (Stanley H. Weiss & Elliot P. Cowan, “Laboratory detection of human retroviral infection”, chapter 8 in Gary P. Wormser (ed.), AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection, 2004 (4th ed.).

No technical expertise is needed to recognize the sheer unadulterated nonsense of talking about “risk factors” when the known end-result is less risky behavior. How can any number of purported risk factors be alleged to heighten risk when the facts show that the risk is lower of the only behavior that supposedly transmits “HIV”?

* Words uttered without regard to their truth — Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit, Princeton University Press, 2005.

Posted in experts, HIV absurdities, HIV and race, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV transmission, HIV/AIDS numbers, prejudice, sexual transmission, uncritical media | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »