HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Posts Tagged ‘HIV and race’

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 »


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2007/12/29

‘Twas only yesterday (“HIV DISEASE”, 28 December) that I remarked on HIV’s ability to act psychically or magically by way of its “bystander” mechanism. Immediately came this confirmation:

“HIV-Positive Women Have Higher Risk of Bone Fractures (POZ, 28 December):

HIV-positive women face a greater risk of bone fracture than HIV-negative women, despite . . . [being] similar in terms of age, bone mineral density, family history of osteoporosis, calcium intake and other factors known to affect bone health.

26 percent of the HIV-positive women had a history of a fragility fracture—a broken bone that occurs as a result of a fall from standing height or less—compared with just 17 percent of the HIV-negative women. This result was statistically significant, meaning that the difference was too great to have occurred by chance.

Dr. Prior’s team theorized that the difference in fracture rates, despite equal bone mineral density, may be due to the effect of HIV infection within the bone in a manner that does not show up on standard measures of bone health.”

* * * * * *

Missing from the report is such necessary information as whether the women had been HIV-positive when they suffered the fractures. As Kary Mullis points out in Robin Scovill’s must-see film The Other Side of AIDS, “infection” by “HIV” is the contemporary equivalent of possession by the devil; once possessed or infected, anything unpleasant that happens must be owing to that evil power.

For non-believers in Satanic possession, the thing to remember is that “HIV-positive” is not a sign of infection by a deadly pathogen, it is a sign that the immune system is reacting to something. What it’s reacting to may be trivial and temporary or serious.

“HIV-positive” signifies different things in different people.
—In those who inject drugs, it is probably a direct result of the physiological action of those drugs or of their debilitating “side” effects.
—In gay men, the testimony of many “long-term non-progressors” or “elite controllers” is that being HIV-positive is compatible with a healthy life provided one behaves in a reasonably sensible manner.
—When it comes to groups of people like those in the study cited above, who seem to be comparable in all manifest ways, yet some of whom test HIV-positive and others do not, it is a reasonable inference that the HIV-positive ones are experiencing some higher degree of physiological stress and may therefore have a more dubious prognosis; a search would be warranted for unsuspected ailments or genetic predispositions or earlier traumatic events.
For example, among people with tuberculosis, the HIV-positive ones have a poorer prognosis (“TB biggest threat to HIV positive”; “HIV, tuberculosis jointly kill 300 Peruvians every year” ). In one of the earliest studies in Africa, the poorer prognosis of HIV-positive youths led researchers in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to confuse correlation with causation (“One may realize the association between HIV infection and death even without believing that HIV causes AIDS”, Dondero and Curran, Lancet 343 [1994] 989-90).

The relationship of HIV-positive to physiological stress is evident when one compares reported rates among low-risk groups:


For all groups except the top three, the rates of testing HIV-positive seem to correlate with the average state of fitness or good health: repeat blood donors have been screened for fewer health problems than first-time donors; active-duty military have been screened for fewer health problems than applicants for military service; runaway youths and people attending various clinics are likely to have some noticeable health problems.

For the top three groups, something else seems to be in play. Tuberculosis apparently is very likely to produce a positive “HIV”-test, as is the abuse of drugs. As already said above, for gay men, HIV-positive may not signify a serious challenge to health. My correspondent Tony brought to my attention some time ago the intriguing possibility, with considerable evidence to support it, that in many cases HIV-positive among gay men may be an outcome of disturbances of the intestinal flora; that’s been mooted by other people as well, for example by Vladimir Koliadin and at NotAIDS! (3 February 2007, “AIDS or Candida albicans?” ).

Among other than these “high-risk” groups, “HIV-positive” seems to mark the possibility of a poorer prognosis for some undetected reason, not because some devilish retrovirus is secretly at work: HIV-positive women are more likely to break bones, and it would be good to find out why—and especially whether the fracture perhaps came before the positive HIV-test and caused it, for there have been a number of reports showing a higher rate of HIV-positive tests among victims of trauma (references cited at p. 85 in The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).

Yet one must not link HIV-positive inevitably to a poorer prognosis, because the physiological reaction represented by “HIV-positive” is strongly influenced by individual factors and such attributes as sex, age, and race: for instance, within a group matched for all other known variables, people of African ancestry test HIV-positive 5 or more times–sometimes very many times more–than others.

Testing HIV-positive means that certain proteins or bits of RNA or DNA are present. What consequences that may have need to be explored in each individual case.

Posted in HIV absurdities, HIV and race, HIV does not cause AIDS | Tagged: , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2007/12/22

“Urban legends” are widely believed stories that circulate without the benefit of supporting evidence. “Celebrity facts” are urban legends expressed in sound bites.

* * * * * *

SHARON STONE: “We will stand for the one child who dies every minute. We will stand for the one person who dies every second of AIDS. “

ELTON JOHN: “It is a huge pandemic that’s affecting the whole world.”

ANGELINA JOLIE: “Every 14 seconds a child becomes orphaned.”

SHARON STONE: “We will not be silent. We will not be silenced. We will stand for those 40 million people who are, at this moment, dying of AIDS”.

[The above from video clips included in the program.]

* * * * * *

[The following from Sharon Stone to Larry King]
“a child is dying every two minutes from AIDS. We have to look at what’s really happening. And I think the biggest number we have to look at is how many people have survived AIDS. Zero.”

“people don’t really believe it can happen to them. I don’t think that people are in the reality of how prevalent AIDS really is and how serious that it really is. . . . it’s the fourth leading killer of women in America . . . half of the people that have AIDS are women.”

Medications prevent mother-to-child transmission: “mothers of HIV [sic] were able to give birth to zero children with AIDS”.

* * * * * *

My valued correspondent Tony alerted me to this interview by Larry King with Sharon Stone, on 27 November, in honor of World AIDS Day. I got a transcript, and the quotes above are taken from that.

Stone is in her “12th year with the American Foundation for AIDS Research, now the Global Foundation for AIDS Research”; earlier she had “worked at the Elizabeth Glaser Foundation here in our community when it was just a very small thing, a local fair. And of course now it’s a worldwide foundation, which is really quite wonderful”.

Well-meaning celebrities often lend their names and their presence to fund-raising and consciousness-raising events of all sorts. How much responsibility do they bear for getting their facts straight?

If the intentions are good, do the facts matter?

If the cause is a good one, do the facts matter?

To what extent does it matter, that every one of the asserted “facts” cited above is at variance with at least one of official data, reality, or plain common sense?

* * * * * *

In the video clip, a child is said to die every minute; in the interview, it’s every two minutes. Does this difference of a factor of 2 matter, halving or doubling the claimed number?

What had struck me most was the adult dying every second. That seems an awful lot. How many does that make in a year?

I checked my rough figuring by means of a calculator, and then checked it again twice to make sure I had my decimal point in the correct place. 1 per second equals 31,500,000 per year. Stone asserted that 31,500,000 adults die each year of AIDS.

According to UNAIDS (update of December 2006), annual adult deaths from AIDS were 2,600,000. Does it matter that Stone’s number is 12 times as large as the UNAIDS figure? (She couldn’t yet have known of the UNAIDS December 2007 update that lowered the estimate from 2,600,000 to 1,700,000.)

* * * * * *

Here’s what the National Statistical Service says about the leading causes of death among women in the United States for 2004 (CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, 56 #5, 20 November 2007):


Far from being fourth, as Stone told Larry King, AIDS is not even among the TEN leading causes of death.

When the data are broken down by age category, AIDS is not in the top ten for ages up to 19. At ages 20-24, “HIV disease” comes in at #8. Accidents come first, accounting for 40.5% of all deaths in this age group. “HIV disease” is responsible for only 1.4% of all deaths, less not only than accidents but also below assault, cancer, suicide, heart disease, pregnancy and childbirth, and congenital illnesses.

For women between 25 and 34, “HIV disease” has moved up to #6, below accidents, cancer, heart disease, suicide, and assault; it represents 4.4% of all deaths in this age range.

For ages 35 to 44, “HIV disease” is up at #5 but still represents just 4.3% of all deaths. In the next group (ages 45-54), it’s back down to #9, and 1.6% of all deaths. Above age 55, it fails again to make it into the top ten.

Perhaps Stone just misspoke slightly? We’ve all heard that HIV and AIDS in the USA have become a disease of the African American community, with black women particularly at risk. Maybe she meant the fourth leading cause of death among African-American women?

But AIDS doesn’t appear in the top ten there either. It does come in at #8 among 10-14 year-old African-American females, at 2.1% of all deaths in that category. But it’s only at #9 for those aged 15-19 (1.7% of all deaths). It rises to #6 for ages 20-24 (5.5% of all deaths); reaches #1 for ages 25-34 (13.5% of all deaths) before falling to #3 at ages 35-44 (12%), #4 at 45-54 (5%); and disappears again from the “top ten” above age 55.

Add up all the deaths at all ages; “HIV disease” represents 1.5% of all deaths among black females in the United States in 2004. Heart disease claimed 27%, cancer 21%, stroke 7.5%, diabetes 5%. kidney diseases 3%, accidents 2.9%, Alzheimer’s 2.2%, flu and pneumonia 2.1%.
Is the hysteria about the risk of AIDS to black women somewhat disproportionate?

Among white women, “HIV disease” accounted for 0.05% of all deaths.

Among all Americans, both sexes, all races, “HIV disease” accounted for 0.5% of all deaths in 2004.

That’s Elton John’s “huge pandemic . . . affecting the whole world”. Those are the data underlying the official mantras that “everyone is at risk”.

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

Those numbers illustrate yet another stark discrepancy between the actual data about HIV and AIDS and the statements from those who speak for the orthodoxy. I repeat my questions, but now they are rhetorical:

How much responsibility do Sharon Stone, Elton John, Angelina Jolie and other celebrities bear for getting their facts straight?

If their cause is a good one, do the facts matter?

If their intentions are good, do the facts matter?

Celebrities take on these campaigns in the belief that people will pay attention to them, so surely they are responsible for getting things right. Of course it matters what the facts are: it’s the facts that determine whether a cause is a good one or not; and the path to Hell is paved with the good intentions of those who failed to get their facts straight.

* * * * * *

How has it happened that wrong assertions, sometimes patently absurd ones, are swallowed whole by the media, by celebrities, and by the public, on the say-so of a few gurus in white coats?

It could happen because science has become the universal religion and scientists have become priests whose sayings go uncontradicted because of a belief that only they have access to the requisite arcane sources of knowledge. Just ponder what weight the adjectives carry, when it’s said somewhere that “scientific tests have shown…”, or when it’s said that something is “unscientific”. “Scientific” is nowadays a universal synonym for “true”, and “unscientific” is nowadays a universal synonym for “false”.

Another similarity with religion: Anyone who questions the “consensus” disseminated by the white-coated gurus who hold prominent offices is excommunicated. What other word describes so accurately what happened to Peter Duesberg, described in chilling detail in the first chapter of Celia Farber’s “Serious Adverse Events”?

* * * * * *

Those actual data about female deaths in the United States revealed some more numbers that illustrate the failings of HIV/AIDS theory:

1. Why is “HIV disease” a more prominent killer of 10-14-year-old black females than of 15-19-year-old black females?

2. Why is “HIV disease” so much more prominent a killer of black females than of white, Asian, Hispanic, or Native American females?
Here are the rankings (within the top ten) for deaths from “HIV disease”, by age group (corrected 27 December):


Note, by way of preamble, that Stone said deaths from AIDS, not from “HIV disease”. “AIDS”, “HIV/AIDS”, and “HIV disease” have been made into synonyms. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention bear ultimate responsibility for this because, starting in the late 1980s, they expanded the definition of “AIDS” a number of times to include common diseases when the patient happens to test HIV-positive; thus people with tuberculosis have tuberculosis if they are HIV-negative, but they are “living with AIDS” if they are HIV-positive. So a death from “HIV disease” signifies a death from any manifest cause if the person happens to have tested HIV-positive: “all deaths among HIV-positives are counted as AIDS deaths . . . [even if death resulted from] liver failure, a heart attack, suicide, drowning, CMV (cytomegalovirus) infection, or a car accident, or anything else” (“Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?” by Rebecca Culshaw, p. 30; the specific example given there is for Massachusetts).

This confusion, or lumping together, of HIV and AIDS is illustrated when Stone said, “mothers of HIV [sic] were able to give birth to zero children with AIDS”, but it is also evident in the official CDC Surveillance Reports, which in several places do not distinguish “HIV-positive” from “living with AIDS”; for example, from the 2004 Report, “Table 1. Estimated numbers of cases of HIV/AIDS, by year of diagnosis and selected characteristics of persons, 2001-2004—35 areas with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting”.

Here then is the reason why black females die so much more often from “AIDS” than do other females. “HIV-positive” is not a sign of infection by an HIV virus, it is a non-specific indication of some sort of physiological stress. In any given circumstances, when exposed to some health challenge or stress, people of African ancestry test “HIV-positive” much more often than others do. So deaths from all sorts of common diseases are labeled “AIDS” deaths more often in the case of black people than with members of other human groups. A comprehensive survey of race-related data and associated discussion are in my book: chapter 5, “HIV discriminates by race”; chapter 6, “What is it about race?”; chapter 7, “Racism”. An earlier and shorter discussion is in an article posted at

Posted in HIV and race, HIV risk groups, HIV varies with age, HIV/AIDS numbers, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: