HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Posts Tagged ‘Gisselquist’


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/01/06

If one thing is certain about HIV/AIDS, it is that “HIV” is not a sexually transmitted agent.

I can be certain about that because I’ve examined the reported evidence for myself.

Not all of the evidence, of course, because no one could possibly do that; but I have gathered the published data about HIV tests in every HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); every pertinent article in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report; and hundreds of articles reporting HIV tests in JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, and other medical-scientific journals. I used PubMed to find many relevant articles and to guide me from one article to related ones.

The data represent more than 50,000,000 tests. Several social groups have been tested routinely–applicants for military service, active-duty military personnel, blood donors, Job Corps members–and the results from those groups comprise an unparalleled resource for identifying trends: unparalleled because the tests were carried out on essentially all members of those groups, so that there are none of the uncertainties associated with sampling that often leave interpretation of statistical medical and social data less than certain.

The regular trends in those data are nothing less than astonishing. Whether “HIV” tests concerned newborns or their mothers, or military personnel, or blood donors, or gay men or people injecting illegal drugs, several things are always the same:
—The geographic distribution of positive HIV tests is the same. Even though the average rate of testing HIV-positive varies by a factor of 100 or more between drug users and blood donors, within each group the geographic distribution is the same: highest in the North-East and South-East, lowest in the North Central regions, higher in the South than in the West.
So unvarying a geographic distribution across social groups is not found with syphilis, gonorrhea, or other known sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
—This geographic distribution of positive HIV tests has remained the same throughout the AIDS era: it was the same in the early 1980s as in the late 1990s. That’s certainly not like a contagious disease, and certainly not like an STD that spread across the country from New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco since the 1970s.
—Among the low-risk groups–excluding gay men and drug injectors, in other words–, the frequency of positive HIV tests varies with age and sex in the same manner in every tested group:


With genuine STDs, it is typically adolescents who are at greatest risk, not middle-aged people; and newborns and young children are not infected with STDs at rates comparable to those among adults; yet “HIV-positive” is as common among newborns as among the most highly “infected” middle-aged adults in low-risk groups.

* * * * * *

If you have unprotected sex with someone who has gonorrhea or syphilis, your chance of catching that infection yourself is something like 50:50 (anywhere from 10% to 90%).

If you have unprotected sex with an HIV-positive person, what are the odds that you will become HIV-positive yourself?

About 1 in a 1000.

* * * * * *

Why believe what I’ve just written, when the media are full of official statements warning that everyone is at risk, that condoms should always be used, that sex is the main way that “HIV” is transmitted?

You shouldn’t believe anything just because I say so. And you shouldn’t believe anything just because others say so, either, even if they are a Director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, or because they have won a Nobel Prize or other prizes, or because they have been acclaimed for discovering something. You should believe something only if you have the good reason of having seen for yourself that the evidence supports the statements made.

One of the things I learned through doing science is that anyone can be wrong; and I learned the more difficult lesson that I myself can be wrong. I’ve been wrong through accepting what others said, and through misinterpreting data, and because there were totally unknown and unsuspected factors involved, and I’ve been wrong through just plain making mistakes because of muddle-headedness or tiredness or ignorance. So I’m wary of saying I’m certain about something, and especially wary when “everyone” knows something different.

It took me months to come to terms with the data showing that “HIV” is not sexually transmitted, and I reached the conclusion simply because there is no other way to explain the data. If you want to make up your mind about this, you may have to look at all the data for yourself. Ideally you should start from scratch, gather whatever data you can find about HIV tests, and tabulate the results by age and geography and sex and date and anything else that you think might be relevant. Then look to see whether there are any regularities to be explained.

A second-best way would be to look at my collection of the data and discussion about them, and to check my sources: make sure I haven’t misquoted or omitted, and search the literature for things I overlooked and that might contradict my analysis.

A not-very-good way to make up your mind would be to judge that I’m sincere and to trust that I’ve done what I say I’ve done. But that would be no worse than believing what you read in the newspapers, or believing that gurus in white coats are always right. In fact, believing the white coats or the media may be the worst possible way of making up your mind about anything important.

* * * * * *

From where did I get that “1 chance in 1000” for sexual transmission of HIV? I looked hard into the literature but found no study that claimed more than a few per 1000. Chapter 4 of my book, The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, cites a score of publications that all arrive at about the same 1-per-1000 odds, and it cites the doctors and biostatisticians who concluded that “the transmission probabilities presented are so low that it becomes difficult to understand the magnitude of the HIV-1 pandemic” (Chakraborty et al. AIDS 15 [2001] 621-6).

I found in Robert Gallo’s memoirs an acknowledgment that HIV is “distinctively difficult to transmit” (p. 131, “Virus Hunting”, 1991).

* * * * * *

Gonorrhea and syphilis, transmitted quite efficiently at about 1 chance in 2, cause local outbreaks periodically, but they don’t bring about worldwide epidemics. With HIV/AIDS, we are being asked to believe that something transmitted 100 times less efficiently than gonorrhea or syphilis is producing epidemics all over the world. Seems like a good time to offer some more Brooklyn Bridges for sale.
Gisselquist and colleagues have published a number of articles arguing, on the basis of observed sexual behavior as well as lack of transmission efficiency, that sexual transmission cannot explain the African epidemic of “AIDS” (“Not investigating HIV riddles puts lives at risk”, Business Day [Johannesburg], 4 October 2007; “How much do blood exposures contribute to HIV prevalence in female sex workers in sub-Saharan Africa, Thailand and India?” International Journal of STD & AIDS 18 [2007] 581-588; Gisselquist et al., “HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa not explained by sexual or vertical transmission”, 13 [2002] 657-666; “Running on empty: sexual co-factors are insufficient to fuel Africa’s turbocharged HIV epidemic” ibid. 15 [2004] 442-452; Brewer et al., “Mounting anomalies in the epidemiology of HIV in Africa: cry the beloved paradigm”, ibid. 14 [2003] 144-147).

Pillars of the orthodoxy have offered specious arguments running about like this: “Sure, on average it’s only 1 per 1000, but there may be special circumstances when it’s much higher, say just after infection when the virus is replicating madly”. The sufficient but not only basis for calling that suggestion specious is that epidemics require an average, overall “reproduction ratio” appreciably greater than 1. You cannot have an epidemic unless, on the whole, on average, every infected person infects more than one other person within a rather short space of time. A score or more of specific studies, in Africa and Haiti as well as the United States, tells us that with “HIV” this does not happen.

* * * * * *

This was known long ago. Already in 1988, Anderson & May (Nature, 333: 514-9) guessed that there might be some special period of high infectiousness because the average apparent transmission rate is too low to bring about an epidemic. Reporters for the Wall Street Journal recognized in 1996, from CDC sources, that “for most heterosexuals, the risk from a single act of sex was smaller than the risk of ever getting hit by lightning” (Bennett and Sharpe, “AIDS fight is skewed by federal campaign exaggerating risks”, 1 May, pp. A1, 6). Fumento (“The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS”, 1990) among others pointed out that AIDS never spread into the general population outside Africa and the Caribbean. But the white-coated gurus who uphold the mistaken HIV/AIDS theory continue to do their best to obfuscate these facts. Take what Anthony Fauci said on the Diane Rehm show (“HIV/AIDS”, 17 August 2006, PBS Radio, transcript by Soft Scribe LLC).

Fauci admitted that “it is not a one to one ratio by any means. It’s not you have one sexual contact, and therefore you’ll get infected. It’s a relatively low efficiency”–but he failed to acknowledge that it’s about 1 per 1000, a vast and misleading difference from “not one to one”. And Fauci went on to venture this: “since there is so much sexual activity . . . , when you compound all of the sexual contacts among people, . . . , then you get the infection rates that we just spoke about where you windup getting five million new infections per year. There has to be a lot of sexual contact for that to occur. But, in fact, there is a lot of sexual contact going on everyday in the world”.

But that probability of 1 per 1000 applies only when one of the sex partners is already HIV-positive. UNAIDS puts the average global infection rate at about 1%: on average, if you choose your sexual partner at random, you have 1 chance in 100 of getting an HIV-positive one. So your overall risk is 1 in 100 multiplied by 1 in 1000, in other words 1 in 100,000. That, Fauci would have us believe, is capable of producing 5,000,000 new infections in the world each year.

And all that sexual activity Fauci conjures up somehow fails to spread gonorrhea or syphilis while disseminating something that is 100 times less infective.

So, I suggest, don’t believe everything that Dr. Anthony Fauci says, even about matters on which he is supposed to be expert.

But, of course, as I said, don’t believe what I say, either.

Just look at the evidence for yourself. That’s the smart thing to do.

Posted in HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV tests, HIV transmission, sexual transmission | Tagged: , , , , , , | 30 Comments »


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2007/11/25

Children not infected by their mothers, and not victims of pedophiles, could become HIV-positive only via infected needles or transfused blood, according to the orthodox view of HIV/AIDS. But a number of reported instances cannot plausibly be explained in this fashion. Instead, they support once again the interpretation of “HIV-positive” as a non-specific marker of physiological stress or challenged health.

* * * * * *

Gisselquist recently cited 42 instances of HIV-positive babies born to HIV-negative mother in South Africa (“Not investigating HIV riddles puts lives at risk”, Business Day (Johannesburg), 4 October 2007). He ascribes these infections to unhygienic medical procedures.

In Britain, 5 of 25 mothers of HIV-positive newborns had tested HIV-negative when entering antenatal care (Struik et al., Arch Dis Child., 12 September 2007 [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 17855439). It was speculated that they must have become infected while they were pregnant.

No explanation was offered about the 4-month-old baby in India who was found to be HIV-positive while neither parent, nor the child’s older sibling, was HIV-positive (, accessed 21 December 2007).

Allegations that children became infected with HIV in hospitals or orphanages as a result of unhygienic procedures have also been made in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Romania, and Russia. The Libyan case was widely reported because foreign medical personnel were charged with deliberately infecting children–400 of them in a single hospital (for much detail, see Wikipedia). In Kazakhstan, “at least 78 children have been infected with the HIV virus through the negligence of healthcare workers” (Joanna Lillis, “Government in Kazakhstan Addresses HIV-Infection Scandal” 10/25/06 ); later investigations reported that in 3 hospitals, more than 100 children had become infected in 2006 (cited by Gisselquist, see above). In Kyrgyzstan, “at least 26 people, mostly children, [were] infected in two local hospitals” (Daniel Sershen, “Kyrgyzstan: Officials Grapple with HIV Outbreak”, 10/30/07 ) and medical personnel were fired (“Four more toddlers infected with HIV in outbreak in Kyrgyzstan”,, accessed 26 October 2007). (For further details regarding Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, see the Archives at

Gisselquist (above) describes the following events in Romania and Russia. In Romania, one HIV-positive child of an HIV-negative mother led to further testing, whereupon 12 of 30 children in the same hospital were found to be HIV-positive; widespread testing then found, within a couple of years, 1300 infected–few of them with HIV-positive mothers–among the 12,000 tested. In Russia, it was believed that a single HIV-positive child had led within a couple of years to the infection of 260 children in the same hospital.

* * * * * *

The worldwide consensus over the Libyan affair exonerated the medical personnel from having deliberately infected those 400 children. But how likely is it that these hundreds were all infected accidentally? Could there be so much HIV around in the first place to contaminate the medical instruments? Could the failure to sterilize be really so pervasive? Could conditions have been similarly risky in the hospitals of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Romania, when the prevalence of HIV in those countries is so very low, at ≤0.1% (UNAIDS 2006)? Most of the HIV-positive people in those countries are injecting drug abusers; do hospital personnel perhaps use needles borrowed from drug addicts?

Bear in mind that, no matter what the official propaganda says, the official data make clear that it is extraordinarily difficult to transmit the “HIV-positive” condition via infected needles–see pp. 47-48 of The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory for citations of the peer-reviewed literature reporting, for example, that “HIV-positive” was 34% among injecting drug users (IDU) who did not share needles and only 19% among those who did; an independent study in Montreal found that clean needles were associated with a ten-fold increase in the odds of seroconverting to HIV-positive; there was no spread of HIV among IDU prisoners in Maryland during 2 years; medical personnel have not contracted HIV or AIDS through needle-stick accidents–the risk was estimated at about 0.3% (whereas for hepatitis the risk is > 10%) and only 57 possible instances had been reported by December 2001, when the count of AIDS cases stood near 800,000.

A large unknown is this: For how long can HIV particles remain infectious outside a living body? Long enough for hundreds of children to have been infected within a few short years? That seems extremely unlikely. But if not dirty needles , then what can explain these epidemics of HIV-positive children?

As already suggested, a ready explanation is that “HIV-positive” is the sign of physiological stress having nothing to do with infection by a human immunedeficiency virus. Strong evidence for this comes from the manner in which HIV-positive varies with age (for further details, see Tables 25-27 and associated text in The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory). The following schematic diagram, shown also in the post of 18 November,


is based on a large number of individual reports. For ages below the teens, there are four sets of data from public testing sites across the USA (1995-98), one from hospital patients in New Jersey (1988), and one from healthy subjects in Africa (1984-86). Remarkably enough, all showed a similar decrease of the rate of HIV-positives after birth, a decline of about 3/4 in the first year or so. As reflected in the diagram, the rate among newborns was not far from the highest rates recorded at any age, and the lowest rate was in the early teens in all cases.

It seems inconceivable that rates of infection by some contagious agent would show such similar variations with age in such different groups of subjects. On the other hand, this is precisely what one would expect if HIV-positive is a marker of physiological stress. Newborns are immediately challenged to cope with circumstances less friendly than the womb–as noted in an earlier post, Nature has formulated mothers’ milk in a way that helps the infant ward off infections. Over the years, the child’s immune system adapts and the child becomes better able to ward off environmental insults and infections–so, signs of physiological stress become less evident, and the rate of “HIV-positive” declines.

The CDC’s data sets from public testing sites show separately the rates of HIV-positive for females and for males: the latter is greater, by 50% or more. That is again consistent with an explanation in terms of physiological stress, for the natural mortality of male children is higher than that of females. By contrast, it would not be so easy to conjure an explanation of why mothers transmit an infection to male babies 50% more often than to female babies.

Other evidence that HIV-positive marks physiological stress are cited at p. 85 in The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, for example: critically ill patients, particularly those in emergency rooms, had higher rates of HIV-positive than others, and unexpectedly high rates of HIV-positive were also found in autopsies.

Once it is accepted that “HIV-positive” is a marker of physiological stress, it becomes rather obvious why it is reported from hospitals in many countries that a significant number of children test HIV-positive even as their parents test negative: the reason is the same as the reason why they are in hospital in the first place, they are experiencing a challenge to health, some degree of physiological stress from any of a variety of possible sources. Surely this is a more plausible line of reasoning than one that has to envisage HIV-infected instruments in large-scale use in several countries, even those where the rate of HIV-positive in the general population is as low as 0.1%; or reasoning that has to envisage that, in Britain, 20% of HIV-positive newborns have that infection because their mothers practiced unsafe sex or drug-injecting even while they were pregnant.

These data about HIV-positive children of HIV-free parents confirms what one can learn from studies of HIV and breast-feeding and from the reports that married women in many places are at the greatest risk for becoming HIV-positive: “HIV-positive” does not signal infection by a deadly virus.

Data about AIDS as well as HIV-positives among children also throws direct doubt on the orthodox view that “HIV-positive” presages progression to AIDS. According to the CDC’s 2005 Surveillance Report, for every 137 adults “living with HIV” in 2005, there were 174.5 “living with AIDS”; among children below 13 years of age, for every 7.4 “living with HIV” there were 2.7 “living with AIDS”. That seems to indicate that the chances of a child progressing from HIV to AIDS is much less than the chance of an adult doing so: for every HIV-positive child, there is only one in three (2.7/7.4 = 0.36) with AIDS, whereas for every HIV-positive adult, there is more than one with AIDS, 137/174.5 = 1.27. Is it conceivable, does it make sense, that children could be 3½ times (1.27/0.36) better able to resist progression to disease than adults?

Posted in HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV in children, HIV transmission, HIV varies with age, M/F ratios | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »