HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Posts Tagged ‘Jay Levy’

GAYnocide in San Francisco

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/04/04

In “Predicting rates of ‘HIV-positive’ — and racial cleansing” (2010/03/14), I pointed out that Washington DC was setting out on an unwitting campaign of racial cleansing: testing everyone for HIV and administering toxic drugs to all “HIV-positive” people, irrespective of their state of health, would lead to a disproportionate number of African Americans being killed by the toxic drugs, since black people test “HIV-positive” far more often than others.

Now San Francisco is setting out to cleanse itself of gay men in the same manner:
“City endorses new policy for treatment of H.I.V.” (2 April 2010, Sabin Russell)

“San Francisco public health doctors have begun to advise patients to start taking antiviral medicines as soon as they are found to be infected . . . . The new, controversial city guidelines, to be announced next week by the Department of Public Health, may be the most forceful anywhere in their endorsement of early treatment against H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS. . . . Behind the policy switch is mounting evidence that patients who start early are more likely to live longer, and less likely to suffer a variety of ailments — including heart disease, kidney failure and cancer — that plague long-term survivors.”
As I’ve pointed out before, perfectly healthy people take longer to be killed by toxic drugs than people who are already ill. Testing “HIV-positive” can result from a huge variety of different conditions. Among gay men, one prominent cause may be the practice of rectal douching, which can damage the intestinal microflora that constitute a significant arm of the immune system, acting in particular to control fungal infections — see Tony Lance’s hypothesis of intestinal dysbiosis and his presentation at RA 2009, now available in video format (most conveniently on YouTube).
People who test “HIV-positive” AND have symptoms of illness are surely less healthy than people who test “HIV-positive” and do NOT have symptoms of illness. Up to now, therefore, the less healthy people are, the more immediately they have been put on antiretroviral treatment, and therefore they have died sooner from the drugs’ “side” effects than those who start HAART while they are more healthy. We already know that the majority of adverse events among people on HAART are “non-AIDS” events — “side” effects of the treatment that result in organ failure
[NIH Treatment Guidelines, 29 January 2008, p. 13; ; p. 21, November 2008].

The first thing that any “HIV-positive” person should do
is to try to discover WHY they are testing “HIV-positive”:

Have they recently taken antibiotics? Have they recently had surgery? Been pregnant? Had an anti-tetanus shot? A flu shot? Do they eat healthily and eschew douching? And so on. Almost any unusual physical condition appears able sometimes to stimulate a positive “HIV” test — certainly the use of “recreational” drugs and thereby probably the intake of significant amounts of other drugs as well.

The “variety of ailments — including heart disease, kidney failure and cancer — that plague long-term survivors” do NOT plague long-term non-progressors. Those adverse events were never suffered by AIDS patients in the 1980s, that has happened only since the introduction of antiretroviral drugs. Those ailments — “non-AIDS events” as the NIH Treatment Guidelines classes them — plague long-term HAART-treated “survivors”.

“Studies suggest that in the early years of infection, when a patient may show few signs of immune system failure, the virus is in fact causing permanent damage that becomes evident later.”
“Studies suggest” that only because it is assumed, without any direct evidence, that “HIV” somehow damages every cell in the body — magically, since it has never been found in any cells to any significant degree. Demonstrably “infected” people’s CD4 cells, the purported primary target, are “infected” at a rate of much less than 1%, after all (references cited at p. 176 in Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus).

“For instance, in older patients who finally start taking the drugs, the effects of chronic inflammation take their toll.”
Re “older”: Bear in mind that everything about HIV/AIDS is at a maximum in early middle age, 35-50. There is no indication at all of the postulated latent period, and the mortality of PWAs (People With AIDS) does not increase with age, even as mortality from every other known cause increases dramatically with age above the middle years. In 2004, for example, the mortality of PWAs ≥65 was 1.8% whereas that at ages 25-34 was 1.7%, at 35-44 3.2%, at 45-54 3.8%, and at 55-64 2.6% [How “AIDS Deaths” and “HIV Infections” Vary with Age — and WHY, 15 September 2008; HAART saves lives — but doesn’t prolong them!?, 17 September 2008;  No HIV “latent period”: dotting i’s and crossing t’s, 21 September 2008; Living with HIV; Dying from What?, 10 December 2008]
The “chronic inflammation” is a pure guess. Since it has never been discovered just how “HIV” supposedly kills the immune system, a popular guess nowadays is that it must cause chronic inflammation, chronic stimulation of the immune system, which then by some unknown mechanism destroys itself — even though an earlier speculation that AIDS is an autoimmune disease turned out to be wrong. The logic of “chronic inflammation” is analogous to the invention of the term “immune restoration syndrome” to describe the finding that recovery of CD4 counts and diminution of “viral load” was often accompanied by severe illness or death on the part of the fortunate patient whose treatment had been so successful.
Bear in mind, too, that these speculations about chronic inflammation and the like are largely based on observation of HAART-treated individuals, or at least individuals who are not only “HIV-positive” but also in poor health, because most healthy untreated “HIV-positive” individuals are not being monitored. Long-term non-progressors or elite controllers have remained perfectly healthy for as long as a quarter century while “HIV-positive”, and since they are healthy, their existence as “HIV-positive” has never come to official attention. By contrast, it is beginning to be noticed that HAART produces premature aging
[“Another kind of AIDS crisis”, David France, 2009/11/01].

“Dr. Diane V. Havlir, chief of the H.I.V./AIDS division at San Francisco General Hospital, said the new policy was already in effect for her patients. Although a decision whether or not to take the medicine rests with the patient, all those testing positive for H.I.V. will be offered combination therapy, with advice to pursue it.”
How many of her patients have had the opportunity to hear the reasons offered by Rethinkers for not starting HAART?

“The turning point in San Francisco’s thinking may have been a study in The New England Journal of Medicine on April 1, 2009, that . . . found that patients who put off therapy until their immune system showed signs of damage had a nearly twofold greater risk of dying — from any cause — than those who started treatment when their T-cell counts were above 500.”
Exactly. Those who were ill “from any cause” when they started HAART were twice as likely to die as those who were not ill when they started taking the toxic drugs. What a surprise!

“When the first combinations of AIDS drugs came out in 1996, the thinking was ‘hit early, and hit hard.’ But as patients battled nasty side effects, like diarrhea and disfiguring shifts in body fat, therapy was deferred until T-cell counts fell as low as 200. Today, with safer drugs, quick viral suppression is back in fashion.”
“Safer” drugs does not mean safe, of course. Just read the NIH Treatment Guidelines.

“The field is moving, inexorably, to earlier and earlier therapy,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes for Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He called San Francisco’s decision “an important step in that direction.”
Connoisseurs of bureaucratese will recognize the passive voice of “The field is moving, inexorably” as the typical maneuver designed to disclaim responsibility for decisions being made or influenced by the person who deploys the passive-voice statement. “Mistakes were made” is a common enough example; they just happen, no one committed them.
And this “inexorable” move is actually opposed by some highly qualified HIV/AIDS experts like “Jay Levy, the U.C.S.F. virologist who was among the first to identify the cause of AIDS”, who commented that “It’s just too risky”; “The new drugs may be less toxic, . . . but no one knows the effects of taking them for decades”.
“San Francisco’s decision follows a split vote in December by a 38-member federal panel on treatment guidelines. Only half of the H.I.V. experts gathered by the Department of Health and Human Services favored starting drugs in patients with healthy levels of more than 500 T-cells. . . . The risks of early treatment — giving powerful drugs to people at low risk of disease — could outweigh the ‘modest predicted benefit’ . . . . Dr. Lisa C. Capaldini, who runs an AIDS practice in the Castro district, also has strong reservations. . . . [Although] today’s drugs are a vast improvement over earlier therapies, the program, she said ‘is not ready for prime time.’”

But San Francisco pushes ahead,
“advising” everyone to get tested
and “advising” all “HIV-positive” people
to start treatment immediately,
thereby preparing for
genocide of gay men in San Francisco
to accompany
genocide of African Americans in Washington DC

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV varies with age | Tagged: , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Estonian drug addicts don’t have much sex

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/08/13

Actually it’s not only in Estonia, it’s throughout the Slavic world, indeed throughout all of Eastern Europe and as far as northern Asia.

More than a year ago, this remarkable fact was revealed in the specialist literature (Cohen et al., Journal of Clinical Investigation, 118 [2008] 1244-54) by some of the leading experts on HIV/AIDS including Kevin De Cock, director of the World Health Organization’s Division of HIV/AIDS, and several others like Jay Levy who have also been prominent researchers of the “epidemic” since it was first invented. They pointed out [HIV/AIDS ILLUSTRATES COGNITIVE DISSONANCE, 29 April 2008] that in Eastern Europe, about 85% of “HIV-infected” people are injecting drug users, about 5-10% are gay men, and the remaining <10% engage in casual sex. This is in stark contrast to the hotter regions of the globe — in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, fully 50% of “HIV-infected” engage in marital sex; in Latin America and the Caribbean, >60% engage in gay sex but <10% in either marital sex or casual sex.

Of course, these prominent experts expressed the facts in euphemistic form, as though it were that 85% of the “transmission” of “HIV” occurred in Eastern Europe via shared infected needles; but the alert observer will nevertheless have discerned the clear inference that these “infected” drug addicts very rarely have casual or gay sex, since so little “transmission” occurs in that way. (That the categories “MSM” — men who have sex with men — and “Casual sex” were given by Cohen et al. as distinct is no doubt a subtle way of making the politically correct point that gay sex is never casual.)

Through the good offices of a friend in Estonia, I was able to obtain (together with needed translations) data on “HIV” and “AIDS” in that country. Fully confirmed is the finding of Cohen et al. that the “epidemic” of HIV/AIDS is restricted to injecting drug users to such a degree that these individuals must refrain from sex to an extraordinary extent; whether this is because of an altruistic desire not to spread “HIV”, or to the debilitating effects of the drugs, is not mentioned in any of the literature that I have so far seen. The fact, however, is quite clear, and moreover was confirmed by Kevin De Cock when he stated recently that there would never be an epidemic of heterosexually transmitted “HIV” outside Africa:
A 25-year health campaign was misplaced. . . . there will be no generalised epidemic of AIDS in the heterosexual population outside Africa
[WHO SAYS that WE’VE BEEN VERY WRONG about HIV and AIDS? (Clue: WHO = World Health Organization), 10 June 2008 ].

At any rate, here are some of the official data from Estonia. Note first, by the way, that if “HIV” is not a threat in Estonia, then it certainly isn’t a threat in Europe or Northern Asia either, because those regions are even less affected than Estonia (1):


In Estonia, “HIV” was absent or negligible until about 2000, and since 2005 the incidence has seemed stable at about 0.05% (~650 in a population of ~1.3 million). The incidence of AIDS is more than an order of magnitude less than that; and deaths from “HIV disease” seem to have been steady in the last few years at less than 50 out of more than 15,000 deaths from all causes — about 0.3% of all deaths, which is roughly half of the rate in the United States.


The great majority of both HIV and AIDS cases have occurred in drug addicts: 111 of the 191 AIDS cases, 1992-2007, and  between 38% (in 2007)  and 90% (in 2001) of new HIV cases (1). Moreover, up to 40% of all AIDS-related  deaths are actually due to TB (WHO 2006, cited in [1]).


“HIV” is diagnosed by tests that react “positive” under a great variety of conditions, from as unthreatening as flu vaccination to as threatening as malaria or tuberculosis. Drug abuse is unquestionably a health challenge, to put it at its euphemistically absurd mildest. Which is a more likely explanation for the minuscule rate of “HIV” and “AIDS” in Estonia:

1. “HIV” detected in Estonia is an infectious pathogen spread via blood, sex, and infected needles;
2. “HIV” in Estonia represents “positive” tests reflecting everything from vaccination to tuberculosis, but especially (and in most cases) the damage to health caused by drug abuse.

Obviously explanation 2 is far more plausible. In further support, THINK about how shared needling could possibly bring about the sort of brief “epidemic” displayed in the Estonian data. It’s the same sort of situation as I’ve pointed to before in connection with the “outbreaks” of “HIV-positive” babies born to HIV-negative mothers in several places [HIV/AIDS in Italy—and “NEEDLE ZERO”, 11 October 2008; “’Needle ZERO’ again; or, HIV pops up magically out of nowhere”, 15 November 2008]. Where and how did the original infected needle acquire its deadly burden, a burden which cannot long survive outside body fluids?

To my mind, the data supports the “chemical AIDS” hypothesis as an explanation for the great majority of Estonian “HIV” and “AIDS” reports; as does the situation in Italy [HIV/AIDS in Italy—and “NEEDLE ZERO”, 11 October 2008; “Needle ZERO” again; or, HIV pops up magically out of nowhere, 15 November 2008; Official Italian data: no causal connection between HIV and AIDS, 12 July 2009; Italian analysis of HIV/AIDS data, 17 July 2009].

(1) Prevalence of HIV and Other Infections and Risk Behaviour among Injecting Drug Users in Latvia, Lithuania And Estonia In 2007,, accessed 24 July 2009
(2) Report on HIV/AIDS through 31 December 2007,, accessed 24 July 2009
(3), accessed 24 July 2009

or, HIV pops up magically out of nowhere, 15 November 2008

Posted in experts, HIV absurdities, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV transmission, HIV/AIDS numbers, sexual transmission | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »