HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Posts Tagged ‘circumcision and HIV’

Clinical trials of circumcision against “HIV” “infection”

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/09/10

An earlier post [“Circumcision pseudo-science”, 2 September 2009] pointed out that the well-known immune-suppressing effect of surgery is a highly plausible explanation for the quantitatively concordant results of the 3 clinical trials of circumcision to prevent acquisition of “HIV-positive” status. But dubious interpretation is not by far the only flaw in these studies.

Auvert et al., “Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: The ANRS 1265 trial”, PLoS Medicine 2(11) (2005) e298.
Other mainstream researchers have criticized this study on a number of grounds:
— questions of randomization [Siegfried, “Does male circumcision prevent HIV infection?” PLoS Med 2(11): e393; Winkel, “Rush to judgment”, PLoS Med 3(1): e71];
— that the intervention and control groups were treated unequally in terms of instructions regarding intercourse [Young, “Two groups not on all fours”, PLoS Med 3(1): e75];
— that “the authors did not control for other sources of HIV transmission, such as exposure through blood transfusions or infected needles” [Vines, “Major potential confounder not addressed”, PLoS Med 3(1): e63].
— Others might question whether a study stopped after 12 months should be given much credence. Among 1582 controls, 49 new “HIV-positive” cases were observed whereas there were only 20 among the circumcised group of 1546; but 234 of the control group and 154 of the intervention group had been lost before the 12-month visits.
— The claimed incidence of 49 in the control group within a year bespeaks an incredibly high rate of intercourse, given that all estimates of “HIV” transmission report no more than a few per 1000 acts of unprotected intercourse with an infected partner.
— That claimed incidence (2.1% per year) also seems far too high when the overall prevalence of “HIV-positive” at baseline was only 4-5%; the prevalence would be reached after only 2 years!
— “In light of the anomalies and lacunae in Auvert and colleagues’ study, the protective effect of male circumcision they observed amounts to a faith lift for the empirically beleaguered paradigm of heterosexual HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa” [Potterat et al., “The protective effect of male circumcision as a faith lift for the troubled paradigm of HIV epidemiology in Sub-Saharan Africa”, PLoS Med 3(1): e64].
— Glass [“Rubbery figures?”, PLoS Med 3(1): e70] asked why 4 separate reports by Auvert et al. had given different numbers: “If we just look at the official figures — 15 to 45 at the International AIDS Conference and 20 to 49 in PLoS Medicine — between 1 August 2005 and 23 October 2005, it appears that there have been four seroconversions among the uncircumcised and five seroconversions among the circumcised. In less than three months, a 3:1 difference has shrunk to a 2.45:1 difference. Why are the numbers of seroconversions so much at variance in reports published by reputable journals?”
— This studied group of 18-24-year-old males was surely uncharacteristic in some fashion, since 596 of the 2236 participants observed during 21 months “received blood transfusions, were hospitalized, or received injections” [Auvert et al., “Authors’ reply”, PLoS Med 3(1): e67].

So there are ample reasons for not taking the Auvert study as definitive, yet its claim of 60% risk reduction through circumcision has become a shibboleth in the HIV/AIDS literature.
It is intriguing that other studies have found an increased risk of male-to-female “HIV” “transmission” when the male is circumcised [Sykes, “Male circumcision increases risk for females”, PLoS Med 3(1): e72; Chao et al., “Risk factors associated with prevalent HIV-1 infection among pregnant women in Rwanda”, Int J Epidemiology 23(#2, 1994) 371-80: “partner circumcision . . . remained strongly associated with HIV-1 infection even when simultaneously controlling for other covariates”].

***********************

The other two trials of circumcision are reported in Lancet, 369 (2007): Bailey et al., “Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial”, 643-56; Gray et al., “Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial”, 657-66.
These articles are honored by several commentaries in the same issue of Lancet, including a respectful bio sketch of Ronald Gray, who has been pursuing proof of circumcision as preventive for two decades: “His careful analyses of the data from that trial [an unsuccessful one to prevent “HIV” by treating women for sexually transmitted diseases] identified the importance of HIV viral load, lack of male circumcision, and genital ulcer disease on HIV transmission” (“Profile — Ronald Gray: collaborating with Ugandan researchers on HIV trials”, p. 635).
An editorial, “Newer approaches to HIV prevention” (p. 615) unblushingly states that they “show that male circumcision halves the risk of adult males contracting HIV through heterosexual intercourse. . . . a solid evidence-base to inform health policy. . . . Male circumcision might also directly protect against male-to-female transmission of HIV. A trial to test this hypothesis is under way in Uganda, with results expected in 2008” [emphases added].
Note the direct contradiction with the cited Chao study re male-to-female transmission.

Newell and Bärnighausen (pp. 617-9) are also enthusiastic: “We now have proof” that circumcision, “a permanent intervention . . . can reduce the risk of HIV infection in men, which is positive news about prevention after past and current disappointments.”

But there are similar problems with the Bailey and Gray articles as with the Auvert study, for instance that the incidence of new “HIV-positive” cases was extraordinarily high, respectively 2.1% and 1.33% “infections” per year, difficult to reconcile with the low transmissibility of “HIV-positive” — a few per thousand with unprotected sex with an “HIV-positive” partner — as well as with the overall prevalence of “HIV-positive”. In the Bailey study the prevalence was 8%, which would be reached within 4 short years at an incidence of 2.1%, so unlikely a situation as to call the study into question on that ground alone. (The Gray study did not cite a baseline prevalence.)

The Bailey study was halted prematurely after a year, on the basis of 1232 and 1234 results for the initial 1391 and 1393 enrollees. Again as with the Auvert study, a high proportion (751 of 2778) had received injections in the 6 months before the study. During the study, “10,154 unrelated adverse events were recorded among 1979 (71%) participants. The most frequent unrelated adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections (3189 events, 1184 participants, 43%), malaria (2271 events, 1076 participants, 39%), skin or mucous membrane infections (1011 events, 682 participants, 24%), and gastroenteritis (456 events, 327 participants, 12%). Study groups did not differ with respect to these common illnesses”.
With all due respect: It seems unbelievable that the incidence of each one of these was similar in the two study groups. Skeptics remain free to suggest that those adverse events most likely to stimulate a positive “HIV” test might have been more frequent in the control group, since the treated (circumcised) group had rather intensive post-operative medical attention that the control group did not, including “free medical care, were counselled about safe sexual practices, had unrestricted access to condoms, were tested for sexually transmitted infections, and were treated for bacterial infections.”
A definite difference in the two groups was that “sexual abstinence in the circumcision group . . . returned to baseline level at month 24”. Presumably sexual abstinence — lack of it — had remained at baseline in the control group, which was therefore exposed more frequently to all sorts of contagious infection, not only sexually transmitted ones.
It was also reported that herpes infection correlated with “HIV-positive”; the skeptical explanation is, of course, that herpes is one of the many conditions that can yield a positive “HIV” test.

The Gray study in Rakai began with 2474 and 2522 in the intervention and control groups respectively, of whom only 2253 and 2250 were available to the 12-month follow-up when the trial was suspended. About 400 in each group reported symptoms of a sexually transmitted disease within the previous year. During the follow-up period, the control group reported more than twice as many different sexual partners than the intervention group and 3 times as many non-marital partners, with the actual numbers comparable to the numbers of seroconversions. Again, the controls were exposed much more often to all sorts of contagious conditions.
The variation of “HIV” incidence with age was the familiar one: highest at an intermediate age, lower at both lower and higher ages, in this case a maximum in the range 25-29, which is earlier than in American cohorts but not so different from 25-34 reported from Kenya and Lesotho [HIV demographics further confirmed: HIV is not sexually transmitted, 26 February 2008]  or South Africa (25-29 among females, ~35 among males — HIV demographics are predictable; HIV is not a contagious infection, 27 August 2008].
Despite the flaws in the study, the authors claim that “circumcision must now be deemed to be a proven intervention for reducing the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in adult men” [emphasis added] even as it is admitted that “trials that are stopped early could overestimate efficacy”. It is also admitted that circumcision has significant risks, especially in rural areas: “the rate of moderate and severe adverse events related to surgery was almost 4%, which is comparable with rates in the South African and Kenyan trials.6,9 One should note that there were cases in which appropriate follow-up management was required to prevent more serious sequelae. Furthermore, substantially higher complication rates have been reported when surgery is done in rural clinics or by traditional circumcisers.24” [emphasis added].

Risks from circumcision are far from negligible, in other words.

***************************

The numerous flaws in these trials demonstrate that they cannot be regarded as definitive, to put it as mildly as possible. Yet the HIV/AIDS Establishment has treated as gospel the “HIV”-preventive effect of male circumcision, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is even contemplating recommending universal circumcision of male babies in the United States even though these flawed trials were done in Africa and data from the United States show no association between circumcision and “HIV-positive” status.

Posted in clinical trials, HIV absurdities, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV transmission, HIV varies with age, HIV/AIDS numbers, sexual transmission | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Circumcision pseudo-science

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/09/02

The possible benefits and drawbacks of male circumcision have been argued over for decades, centuries, probably millennia. The coincidence that a procedure originating as a religious ritual should turn out to have beneficial, health-protective side-effects is by no means impossible, though no one argues that case for the religious ritual of female circumcision. What’s clear is that medical opinion has been and continues to be divided [David L. Gollaher, “From ritual to science: the medical transformation of circumcision in America”, Journal of Social History, 28 #1 (1994) 5-36]:
“Ironically, but predictably in the context of the history of medical arguments for circumcision, some doctors have conjectured that removing the foreskin may protect men from the most dreaded epidemic of the post-modern world: the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Using retrospective data (the epidemiological equivalent of empiricism) from a venereal disease clinic in Kenya, for example, researchers observed that there were higher rates of HIV infection in the home communities of uncircumcised than circumcised men. Ignoring racial, ethnic, and sociocultural variables — the chief factors dictating whether or not an African boy is circumcised in the first place — they hypothesized that circumcision might serve to inhibit the transmission of the AIDS virus. One wonders whether this theory will endure. But within a medical community desperate to find some weapon against AIDS, its appeal is understandable. Even a physician who is a sober skeptic of the methodologies behind such studies allows that they ‘do suggest that HIV may be more infective during heterosexual intercourse if the male partner is uncircumcised and has a mucosal or cutaneous ulcer.’ [77] AIDS, the nemesis of modern science and medicine, remains a mystery. By some equally mysterious process, it is surmised, circumcision may help”.
[77: Simonsen et al., “Human Immunodeficiency Virus infection among men with Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Experience from a Center in Africa,” NEJM 319 (1988) 274-8; Cameron et al., “Female to male transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type I: Risk factors for seroconversion in men,” Lancet 2 (1989) 403-7; Marx, “Circumcision may protect against the AIDS virus,” Science, 245 (1989) 470-1; Poland, “The question of routine neonatal circumcision,” NEJM, 322 (1990) 1312-5”]

It is worth noting that circumcision as a way of avoiding becoming “HIV-positive” was mooted already in the late 1980s, and enthusiasts have continued to pursue definitive evidence for that for some two decades, despite contraindications no less probative than the pro-indications: a number of studies have found circumcision to be NOT associated with a lower rate of “HIV-positive”; see, for example, those cited in “Rwanda: Circumcise all men — even if it means more ‘HIV’ ‘infection’” [3 February 2008].

I’ve commented before on the remarkable similarities between HIV/AIDS and topics often labeled pseudo-science [“Science Studies 102: Burden of proof, HIV/AIDS ‘science’, pseudo-science”, 22 July 2008;  “HIV/AIDS and parapsychology: science or pseudo-science?”, 30 December 2008;  “Mainstream pseudo-science good, alternative pseudo-science bad”, 25 February 2009]. The failure after two decades of effort to find conclusive proof that circumcision prevents “HIV-positive” is somewhat reminiscent of decades of enthusiastic seeking of evidence for the reality of UFOs or the existence of Nessies; though one might have imagined, perhaps naïvely, that it might be easier to observe circumcision and frequency of “HIV-positive” than to investigate objects like UFOs or Nessies that cannot be brought under observation on command. Still, as Scientific Explorers like to say, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.

At any rate, two decades of observational studies have been inconclusive as to whether there is an association between circumcision and “HIV-positive” status. A recognized problem is the number of potentially confounding factors in these observational studies, primarily cultural and religious characteristics that are often correlated with genetic characteristics.

A powerful argument that CIRCUMCISION DOES NOT PROTECT against “HIV-positive” status comes from solid and consistent observational data on cohorts of gay men. Universally, the groups most frequently testing “HIV-positive” are drug abusers and gay men; in the official jargon, injecting drug users (IDU) and men who have sex with men (MSM). Since IDU are supposedly infected via needles that do not normally make contact with the foreskin, MSM are the group most at risk for acquiring “HIV-positive” status via the foreskin; therefore this would be the ideal group for detecting any preventive effect of circumcision. But a review of 18 such studies found no preventive effect of circumcision against “HIV-positive” among MSM: Millett et al., “Circumcision status and risk of HIV and sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men”, JAMA, 300 [2008] 1674-84.

How then does it come about that the HIV/AIDS Establishment has accepted as an article of faith that circumcision reduces by half the risk of becoming “HIV-positive”? For example,

“CDC mulls routine circumcision of infants to reduce spread of HIV” (Tracy Miller, 25 August 2009)
“In an effort to reduce the spread of the AIDS-causing HIV virus, the Centers for Disease Control are currently mulling routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States . . . . The controversial recommendations, scheduled for a formal release by the end of the year, come on the heels of research that shows circumcised men in African countries hit hard by AIDS had half the risk of getting infected as those who were uncircumcised.
Critics say that focusing on newborns in the United States would only have an effect years down the road, and that circumcising infants subjects them to medically unnecessary surgery without their consent.
But CDC experts maintain that any step to reduce the spread of HIV is worthy of serious consideration.
‘We have a significant H.I.V. epidemic in this country, and we really need to look carefully at any potential intervention that could be another tool in the toolbox we use to address the epidemic,’ Dr. Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology for the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, told the Times. ‘What we’ve heard from our consultants is that there would be a benefit for infants from infant circumcision, and that the benefits outweigh the risks.’
Experts acknowledge that a new circumcision policy is unlikely to have a dramatic effect in HIV infection rates, as most adult men are already circumcised. Additionally, scant evidence exists to prove circumcision protects homosexual men from getting HIV.
79 percent of adult American men are already circumcised, according to public health statistics, though circumcision of newborns has dropped to about 65 percent in recent decades” [emphases added].

Note the usual bureaucratic prevarications:
— Unnamed “experts” and “consultants” are cited in the attempt to outweigh the actual scientific evidence;
— “a significant H.I.V. epidemic” is asserted to exist in the USA, contrary to fact;
— however, insofar as there may be an appreciable frequency of  “HIV-positive” instances in the USA, a large proportion is among MSM, who have been found NOT to benefit in this respect from circumcision;
— and that fact is euphemized or obfuscated by saying “scant evidence exists” instead of that the evidence speaks clearly against any benefit from circumcision.

Note too, “on the heels of research”: It is elementary that new research is not to be relied on until it has been confirmed over time by independent investigators and in a variety of circumstances. This rush to judgment is junk science. REAL SCIENCE ISN’T NEWS [Scientific illiteracy, the media, science pundits, governments, and HIV/AIDS, 15 January 2009].

Since HIV/AIDS theorists do not hesitate to swallow absurdities wholesale, they do not blink at the suggestion that “While circumcision may help protect heterosexual men in Africa from contracting HIV, . . .  it does not appear effective in doing so for American gay men, according to the largest study yet on the issue. . . . Circumcision ‘is not considered beneficial’ for gay men concerned about lowering their risk of becoming infected with HIV, Dr. Peter Kilmarx of the CDC told the Associated Press. He released the study findings at a conference on Tuesday. . . . But circumcision may not offer the same protection when it comes to anal sex, Kilmarx said.” [“Circumcision won’t shield gay men from HIV: Study” ].
Here once more the HIV/AIDS gurus would like to swing both ways, or perhaps every way. On the one hand, it is an hoary shibboleth that gay men are particularly at risk because anal sex is more conducive to “HIV transmission” than is vaginal sex, because of a greater likelihood of skin breakage and blood contact. But in order to justify a program of universal circumcision, it becomes expedient to take somehow the opposite view.

Why would circumcision be preventive?
“Scientists think circumcision can protect against HIV because the tissue of the foreskin has a high number of target cells for HIV infection and is susceptible to tearing during intercourse, providing an entry point for the virus” [“Circumcision: Change in medical opinion possible”].
But, again, anal sex is supposed to pose a greater risk for tearing skin than does vaginal sex. “I also find it fascinating that the male prepuce has gone straight from being an inconsequential ‘flap of skin’ to being a complex immunological organ, just in time to be infected by a virus that targets immune cells” [Winkel, “Rush to judgment”, PLoS Medicine 3(1) (2006) e71].

So the official conclusion is not only highly implausible, it is contrary to the facts accumulated over some twenty years or so. Yet all that is jettisoned by reliance on 3 brand-new clinical trials in Africa, all of them stopped prematurely after a year, that have supposedly shown definitively that circumcision reduces by about 50% the risk of becoming “HIV-positive” — among African heterosexual men, that is, though not among American gay men [Gray et al., “Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial”, Lancet, 369 (2007) 657-66; Bailey et al., “Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial”, ibid., 643-56; Auvert et al., “Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: The ANRS 1265 trial”, PLoS Medicine 2(11) (2005) e298].
A detailed deconstruction of these reports has to be deferred to a later post, this one is already longer than I prefer, but at least one feature of them is readily cited and adds greatly to the implausibility of the conclusion drawn:
In all three trials — in South Africa, Uganda, and Kenya —, the purported effect of circumcision was essentially the same at 50-60%, and it was independent of all other observed variables, among them number of sexual partners, non-marital relationships, condom use, paying for sex, drinking alcohol before sex, age, marital status, education (so stated specifically in Gray et al.).
Think about that. The probability of acquiring any sexually transmitted infection must depend on the probability of intercourse with an already infected person, which itself depends on the prevalence of the infection in the population; also influential will be the number of acts of intercourse and the number of partners, and whether sex is “social” or paid for, because prostitutes are by shibboleth supposed to be a reservoir of HIV and STDs; important too must be the care taken to protect via condoms, which is supposedly influenced by the state of sobriety or lack of it. Yet in 3 different cultures, in 3 widely separated regions of Africa, with groups of different age ranges, and where the incidence of “HIV-positive” in the control groups differed  significantly, somehow all those variables turn out to balance one other so precisely that the overall effect of the studied treatment is almost exactly the same. This strikes me as about as likely as 2 blue moons in the same year, or as Nessie surfacing just as I’m greeted by an alien emerging from a landed UFO.

There is quite a good reason, actually, why all 3 studies should have delivered the same apparent effect of circumcision, but it has nothing to do with “HIV” or sexual transmission: Surgery is well known to suppress immune function. Now the standard test for “HIV” is actually a test for antibodies, and the evidence is ample that “HIV” tests are highly non-specific, reacting “positive” when large numbers of a variety of antibodies are present. Since post-operative antibody production is lower as a consequence of surgery, post-operative apparent “HIV” incidence will be lower.

These clinical trials have demonstrated only that surgery cuts by about half (50-60%) the production of non-specific antibodies.

Posted in clinical trials, experts, HIV absurdities, HIV as stress, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV transmission, HIV/AIDS numbers, sexual transmission | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 25 Comments »

HIV/AIDS theory hurts people

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/01/08

My preoccupation with HIV/AIDS began as a purely intellectual pursuit, trying to make sense of contradictory accounts, and becoming hooked as I gathered HIV-test data that seemed to point inescapably toward the conclusion that “HIV” didn’t cause an epidemic and was not the cause of AIDS. But after my book was published, and increasingly since I began this blog, I’ve glimpsed the many human tragedies for which this monstrous mistake has been responsible. Careers of people who testified to the mistake have been wrecked; an unknown number of parents have been forced to feed their babies poisonous substances that hurt and harmed them; an unknown number of relationships have been broken needlessly; on and on. Recently my Google Alert brought in a single day several stories that illustrate the range of damage that the wrong theory of HIV/AIDS has wrought.

Circumcision:
It’s become a shibboleth among HIV/AIDS “activists” and journalists that circumcision reduces the risk of contracting “HIV” by something like 60%. That’s in the face of many studies to the contrary, including from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Rwanda: circumcise all men—even if it means more HIV infection, 3 February 2008]: “Unhygienic Circumcision ‘Increases Risk of Hiv’” (SciDev.Net, London, 28 February 2007); “PRESIDENT Yoweri Museveni has trashed claims that circumcised men are less prone to HIV/Aids infection. . . . “Why are Muslims and Bagisu dying? Who beats the Bagisu when it comes to circumcising men?” . . . Among the Bagisu, a tribe in eastern Uganda, every male, between adolescence and manhood, must be circumcised”; “Circumcised male and female virgins were substantially more likely to be HIV infected than uncircumcised virgins”; “Circumcision does not affect HIV in US men”.

And still the shibboleth is promulgated: “Adopt male circumcision as anti-HIV strategy” (by Sam Anguria, 6 January 2009, on The New Vision — Uganda’s Leading Website; “The writer an
HIV/AIDS specialist”) : “male circumcision should be fully rolled out in Uganda . . . . Leaders should themselves embrace male circumcision and circumcise their male children.”

It’s not as though circumcision of adults were a trivial matter; let alone in much of Africa, which is where the HIV/AIDS dogmatists advocate it

Stigma:
A rather astonishingly stark self-contradiction in HIV/AIDS matters is the plaintive appeal not to stigmatize HIV-positive people — at the same time as it’s insisted that “HIV” is contracted by careless, unsafe sexual behavior, the risk of “infection” being small unless there is a high level of promiscuity, adultery, and anal intercourse — all of them practices that most societies have stigmatized long before AIDS.
KENYA: Unease over new HIV transmission law . . .
NAIROBI, 12 December 2008 (PlusNews) — In June 2006, a young woman in western Kenya died of HIV-related complications and left a list of about 100 people that she said she had infected with HIV. A new law, approved by the Kenyan president but yet to be implemented, is hoping to prevent willful transmission. The HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act 2006 has drawn mixed and very sharp reactions. Inviolata Mbwavi, an AIDS activist who went public about her status in 1994, warned that the legislation in its current form appeared to label HIV-infected people as dangerous human beings with whom people should not associate. ‘When you criminalise HIV then we are going back to square [one] of trying to stigmatise the virus even more, yet we have not effectively dealt with the stigma associated with HIV. Why do we want to further burden those who are already burdened by coming up with HIV-specific legislation?’ . . . . ‘We know that the majority of those who know their status are women. What we are doing by passing such a law is therefore to condemn people we are claiming to protect to jail.’ The new legislation has also brought into question the responsibility of HIV-negative people. ‘What we are proposing in the law only touches those already [HIV]-positive. We should also look at the responsibility of those who do not have the virus’ . . . .”
And so on and so forth. When a wrong theory gains acceptance, conundrums and contradictions and mutually impossible things also have to be swallowed whole.

Well-intentioned do-gooder harm:
Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report [6 January 2009]
Global Challenges
“IRIN/PlusNews on Friday profiled a commune operated by HIV advocate Paul Ari designed for HIV-positive people who have experienced stigma and discrimination near Mount Hagen, the capital of Papua . . . . people are able to stay at the commune for as long as they need, and relatives are encouraged to visit to help fight stigma related to the virus”.
Clearly, the way to combat stigma directed at HIV-positive people is to have separate places for them, just as long ago we fought the stigma against lepers by providing them with separate accommodations.

Homosexuality:
Gay men — together with hemophiliacs and people of African ancestry and pregnant women and babies — are among those most harmed by the invention and application of the fallacious “HIV” test. For whatever reason, gay men tend to test “HIV-positive” with a rather high probability even when they are perfectly healthy and remain so (as of the present date, for upwards of two decades). So gay men are among those most threatened by the urging that “HIV-positive” people accept antiretroviral treatment, and “HIV” has delivered yet another arrow for the quiver of the confirmed homophobes and homophobic groups:
“HIV being spread mainly through homosexual relations in Spain” (Catholic News Agency, Madrid, 6 January 2009)
“The Anti-AIDS Independent Committee in Spain has called for behavioral changes among homosexuals in order to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, as 2007 data confirms that the disease is more prevalent in the homosexual population. . . . The organization criticized government campaigns that promote condom use, ‘with a message aimed indiscriminately at the population in general and young people in particular, as if everyone were equally at risk, regardless of their habits.’ . . .  the ‘disproportionately high rate of infections can only be explained by much higher promiscuity and a higher risk of homosexual contact.’”

African ancestry:
When panic erupted in a St. Louis school over possible “HIV” infections, I wrote, “What we know from the demographics of ‘HIV-positive’ in the United States is that an individual may test positive after being vaccinated against flu, or taking an anti-tetanus shot, or having TB, or for a large number of other reasons having nothing to do with a life-threatening sexually transmitted virus . . . . We also know that the probability of testing positive for any of those reasons is far greater for people of African ancestry than others; black females in particular are typically 20 times as likely to test positive under one of those numerous conditions. We also know that in the lower teenage years, females are more likely to test positive than males . . . . Those facts cause me to dread the further ‘news’ and rumors that will be leaking out from those ignorant, panicked, ‘everything is normal’, school administrators and health officials in St. Louis.” And, sure enough, it turned out that 99% of the students in that school are black.

Men of African ancestry have been charged with or convicted of having sex while “HIV-positive” in Australia, in Canada, in the United States. In the United States, the average “prevalence of ‘HIV’” is about 0.6%. African Americans are between 7 and 21 times as likely to test “HIV-positive” compared to others, so the average prevalence among African Americans is about 8%. Another demographic fact is that the likelihood of testing positive is greatest at ages in the late thirties to mid-forties. So African Americans in middle age have a chance ≥ 10% of testing “HIV-positive” under such circumstances as having recently been vaccinated or being exposed to some minor health challenge. It struck me as particularly sad that “HIV” should be mentioned in the case of an African American pastor charged with sexual abuse:
“Police: Pastor Charged With Sexual Abuse Has HIV — James Bell Faces Sexual Abuse, Sodomy Charges” (by Stephanie Segretto, WLKY Louisville, 5 January 2009)
“SHELBYVILLE, Ky. — More information about the arrest of a Shelbyville pastor charged with sexual abuse has become public, including his HIV status. . . .
For those who knew Bell, they said it’s hard to imagine he would be facing charges for anything, especially this. . . . neighbors said they will have several people on their minds — Bell’s wife and his three children [emphasis added]”
That “HIV status” will make it seem to most people ever so much worse than the far-from-uncommon sexual lapses of ministers and priests, or the actions of the many men who have sex with young teenagers.
Of course, Bell really behaved irresponsibly in having sex with a 15-year-old. On the other hand, he himself was the one who first reported the fact. And he would be far from the only African American clergyman to be confounded by the news that he is “HIV-positive”, knowing that he was never at risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease:
“An increasing number of Africans who find themselves HIV-positive are taken aback, knowing that they have never behaved in a pertinently risky fashion, like the Rev. Gibson Mwadime, 53, an Anglican vicar in southern Kenya (Sanders 2006a): ‘I thought AIDS was for prostitutes and truck drivers,’ [he] said … learning about his diagnosis in 2001 was like a slap from God, spurring feelings of betrayal and anger. ‘I lived a faithful life and my wife lived a faithful life,’ he recalled praying. ‘And then you bring this sinful disease upon us?’ Like most of the clergymen, Mwadime said he doesn’t know how or when he contracted the virus. He believes his wife was infected through a blood transfusion during childbirth in 1985. A year later, doctors told the couple their baby girl had tested positive for HIV. But when they were told it was a sexually transmitted disease, they dismissed his advice to get tested themselves” (p. 172 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).

**********************

That one day’s set of stories is a mere glimpse of the many human tragedies that the HIV/AIDS business has brought. But is everyone at risk, as the mainstream propaganda would have it?

YES;  EVERYONE  IS AT  RISK
If the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have their way, “HIV” testing will become routine if not universal. Then an increasing number of babies, pregnant women, recently vaccinated individuals, and people exposed to a whole range of health challenges will test positive. After all, the CDC keeps asserting that something like a quarter of all “HIV-positive” Americans don’t know their “status”. That’s about a quarter of a million people.

Some proportion of the newly “diagnosed” will be advised, urged, or forced to consume antiretroviral drugs. Thereupon the numbers of “AIDS” patients dying from non-AIDS events caused by those drugs will increase noticeably. It’s already a majority of them, after all — “In the era of combination antiretroviral therapy, . . .  the risk of several non-AIDS-defining conditions, including cardiovascular diseases, liver-related events, renal disease, and certain non-AIDS malignancies [97-102] is greater than the risk for AIDS in persons with CD4 T-cell counts >200 cells/mm3; the risk for these events increases progressively as the CD4 T-cell count decreases from 350 to 200 cells/mm3” (NIH Treatment Guidelines, 29 January 2008, p. 13).
Eventually, the increasing number of diagnosed people who know they could not have been “infected”, and the obviously increasing number of iatrogenic deaths, will bring wealth to a whole population of trial lawyers, and the HIV/AIDS house of cards will soon thereafter implode.

But it would be so very nice if that implosion could happen without so many unsuspecting people having to die first at the hands of misinformed doctors.

Posted in HIV and race, HIV risk groups, HIV tests, HIV transmission, Legal aspects, prejudice, sexual transmission, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »