HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Archive for the ‘uncritical media’ Category

Larry Kramer in Love and Anger

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/01/30

Larry Kramer in Love and Anger is a 2015 HBO documentary. It recounts most of the history of AIDS through Kramer’s personal involvement and it is largely accurate in what it discusses, though omitting and ignoring some crucial points.

Watching it brought home to me once again what an enormous tragedy this has been and still is and will continue to be because the ultimate crux remains unaccepted: namely, that “science” including medical science can go wrong, and that there are no systemic safeguards against that, no checks or balances, because minority voices within the scientific community are not attended to, instead are castigated and persecuted.

This film gives a good account of the fear that spread among gay men as a mysterious syndrome of illnesses was bringing deaths, several hundred thousand in about half-a-dozen years. But the film also misses the opportunity to make the case against HIV, despite some significant clues. Thus Kramer’s 1978 novel, Faggots, is correctly described as his jeremiad against the fast-lane lifestyle that included much health-damaging use of “recreational” drugs. The film might well have been pointed out that this preceded the appearance of AIDS and could indeed explain why so many people became very ill — as some of them recognized, for instance Michael Callen and his physician Sonnabend. Again, Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) is mentioned as a characteristic AIDS disease, but the film neglects to point out that KS virtually dropped out of the picture after some years as insightful gay men abandoned the use of the nitrite inhalants (“poppers”) that cause this damage to blood vessels (“AIDS KS” is probably different from the classic KS.)

Completely missing is the tragic story of how HIV came to be the accepted cause of AIDS, essentially by declaration at a press conference before any scientific publication.

Kramer’s initiatives are properly credited for revision of the FDA’s procedures for approving drugs — but missing is a discussion of the damaging consequences, not only because of the toxicity of AZT and later “anti-retroviral” drugs but because the fast-track approval system is now abused routinely by Big Pharma to bring to market avalanches of new drugs that reveal their toxicity within a short time after marketing: note the TV and print announcements by lawyers about class-action suits against such medications as Pradaxa, Xeralto, Invokana, and others at the very same time as the drug companies continue to advertise those drugs with dishonest descriptions of potential benefits (“remission is possible”, for example) and down-playing of “side” effects, for instance in TV ads showing healthy actors instead of actual patients actually on the drugs.

The film applauds the introduction of protease inhibitors, but fails to describe their toxicities, again despite obvious clues. Thus the film opens and closes with Kramer in hospital after a liver transplant; and there is a short clip of Kramer warning earlier about the side effects of his medications. The New York Times review of the film of course says, misleadingly, “liver transplant necessitated by his H.I.V. infection” instead of “made necessary by the anti-retroviral medication including protease inhibitors”: “Drug-induced hepatitis and hepatic decompensation (and rare cases of fatalities) have been reported with all PIs” (Table 14, Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1-Infected Adults and Adolescents, 8/8/2014).

And of course nothing is said about dissent from HIV/AIDS theory.

So this documentary can serve only as a reminder of the tragic history of AIDS. I realized also how the nature of the tragedy has changed. Initially it was the mis-identification of the cause as HIV and the subsequent hundreds of thousands of deaths from AZT. But nowadays this has been compounded by the abuse of HIV tests as proof of infection, whereby no sector of society is free from the danger of mis-diagnosis and subsequent mistreatment. Since pregnancy seems to stimulate positive “HIV” tests, especially with women of African ancestry, women and their fetuses and babies are being harmed in significant numbers and will continue to be until the HIV/AIDS blunder is corrected.

For the facts about HIV and AIDS, see The Case against HIV. For why HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS, and the story of how the error was made and entrenched, read The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory [Jefferson (NC): McFarland 2007].

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, clinical trials, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV tests, HIV/AIDS numbers, uncritical media | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

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 »

Who can be trusted about science? Not the Royal Society of London or the National Academy of the United States

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2016/01/02

Those of us who have bothered to look into the evidence about HIV and about AIDS know that the mainstream dogma, that HIV causes AIDS, has no credible evidence in its favor; and that prestigious and authoritative institutions and organizations persistently disseminate the false belief and try to suppress the evidence and those who present it. The most obvious disproof of HIV=AIDS is that HIV is incapable of causing any sort of epidemic because it is not sufficiently transmissible, less than 1 per 1000 acts of unprotected intercourse (and only 1.4 per 1000 acts of unprotected receptive anal intercourse, supposedly the most risky).

At the Rethinking AIDS Conference in Oakland,  I had pointed out that this resistance to contrary evidence is unfortunately not uncommon, it is evident on a variety of topics; see also my book, Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth (McFarland 2012).

One topic on which mainstream dogmatism contrary to evidence is most pronounced is global warming and climate change: do human activities contribute appreciably to these phenomena, outweighing natural forces? The evidence says no, or at least there is no empirical proof of it. Nevertheless, all mainstream groups insist that the science is settled — and that includes the Royal Society of London and the National Academy of Science of the United States, which mislead disgracefully on this topic.

 

Posted in experts, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , | 18 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 JamesMurtaghMDtruth.com, 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 »