HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Posts Tagged ‘Mark Wainberg’

Other things being equal . . . .

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/11/21

“Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change” (New York Times, 20 November 2009; “Hacked e-mail is new fodder for climate dispute”, by Andrew C. Revkin).

Mutatis mutandis, the same story could be written about HIV/AIDS:

“The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate HIV/AIDS researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. . . . In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical ‘trick’ (and a computer model) in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend increase in HIV/AIDS. In another, a scientist refers to climate HIV/AIDS skeptics as “idiots.” . . .
Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them. The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming HIV as cause of AIDS is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists. In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, (any of Fauci, Gallo, etc.) and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature failures of vaccine trails, increasing death rate from side effects of HAART, and no sign of heterosexual HIV/AIDS epidemics outside Africa. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming findings that viral load, CD4 counts, and clinical progression are not correlated with one another . . . and it is a travesty that we can’t,”  . . . . The revelations are bound to inflame the public debate . . . .
Dr. Trenberth (you choose) said Friday that he was appalled at the release of the e-mail messages. But he added that he thought the revelations might backfire against climate HIV/AIDS skeptics. He said that he thought that the messages showed “the integrity of scientists.” Still, some of the comments might lend themselves to being interpreted as sinister. In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate HIV/AIDS patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones (you choose), a longtime climate HIV/AIDS researcher . . . said he had used a ‘trick’ . . . to ‘hide the decline’ in temperatures HIV and AIDS numbers. . . . Dr. Mann (you choose) . . . said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem, ‘and not something secret.’ . . . .
But several scientists whose names appear in the e-mail messages said they merely revealed that scientists were human, and did nothing to undercut the body of HIV/AIDS research on global warming.”
[Yes, it does. Since humans can make mistakes, and since scientists are now acknowledged to be human, therefore scientists can make mistakes and claims made by scientists may be wrong — especially when they have conspired for a decade or two or three to suppress data that contradicts the theory they have been peddling.]

“At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as ‘just the way scientists talk.’
But . . . after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent review. He said some messages mused about discrediting him by challenging the veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin by claiming he knew his research was wrong. ‘This shows these are people (John P. Moore, Mark Wainberg, et al.) willing to bend rules and go after other people’s reputations in very serious ways,’ he said.”

“Spencer R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as ‘great material for historians.’”
So will the files of Peter Duesberg, John Lauritsen, Neville Hodgkinson, Joan Shenton, Gordon Stewart, and the many other courageous fighters for the integrity of HIV/AIDS research.

Posted in experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism, HIV/AIDS numbers, Legal aspects, prejudice, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , , , | 25 Comments »

“Newton” ghost-writes Kalichman’s book — Chapter 4 of Jekyll-Kalichman-Hyde-Newton

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/04/23

At the end of Chapter 3, we left “Joe Newton” shedding crocodile tears over the report that Rebecca Culshaw had lost her job. On a later occasion, he was perhaps hoping that her fate and similar experiences of others  might cause me to worry about my own position:
10 October 2008, Newton to Bauer:
“It is true what you say about Dr. Duesberg and his being treated badly.
How about you Dr. Bauer? How have your colleagues treated you? I mean with your interests in scientific explorations and all. Do they call you a pseudoscientist and other such names? I know you have been a Dean, do your colleagues respect you? I figure you must have a back like a duck to repel all that water.”

I enjoyed needling a little:
“Very decently. There aren’t any Wainbergs or Moores around here. I’ve given talks at the local medical school, to student groups, at departmental seminars, about my scholarly interests in Loch Ness, anomalies in general, HIV/AIDS, never a hint of trouble.
Maybe it’s partly owing to what I noticed when I moved from Michigan to Kentucky, and perhaps even more so in Virginia: there’s a tradition of courtesy that is not so generally found in the north and northeastern US.”

“Newton” was relieved: “I am glad to hear that. Really.”
[“Really” was another of “Newton’s” trademarks. For obviously good reason, he knew or suspected that people were unlikely to believe what he said.]


The more “Newton” lied, the more lying became habitual also to his creator, Kalichman. So when it came to writing a book, Kalichman-Newton attributed, to those he was writing about, things they had never said. Many parts of “Denying AIDS” are plagiarized from the  e-mails “Newton” exchanged with “denialists”; or rather, from the e-mails that “Newton” sent to “denialists”, for the book attributes to us things that we didn’t say but “he” did. For example, Kalichman-Newton espied a connection between views on cancer, AIDS, and the environment:
“Newton” to Crowe:
“I noticed you are founding memebr of the Green Party…. That is so  cool. I see the connection between your views on the cancer, AIDS and  the environment. You are a naturalist, yes?
It seems true for Dr. Duesberg as well…. environemental causes of  AIDS and Cancer.
So neat to make these connections.”

But Crowe made no such connection:
“I’m a founding member of the Green Party … in the province of  Alberta only. . . .  I’m not really a naturalist, although I’m very interested in the  natural world. . . .”

Nevertheless, the point appears in “Denying AIDS” (e.g., p. 30 ff.), where Duesberg’s views on aneuploidy as cause of cancer and HIV as not the cause of AIDS are somehow traced to an overarching belief in environmental causes (!!!, Kalichman-Newton would doubtless add).

“Newton” tried desperately to get someone to agree with his discovery that AIDS dissidence could be traced to German roots:
The book that just came off press [Engelbrecht & Köhnlein, “Virus Mania”] looks interesting…but I have  never heard of the author. A German journalist? I note some time back  that most dissidents are German…even D. Bauer was born in Austria!  I am wondering what the German connection is?? Is Dr. Duesberg that  influential?” (to Crowe)

and later, when Christian Fiala published a comment about inflated HIV/AIDS numbers from WHO:
“At 9:05 PM -0400 7/8/08, Joseph Newton wrote:
Mr. Crowe
Did you see this?
Why is the first letter that is supportive from Austria?? What is  this Gernan – Austrian thing and Dissidence?
Best to you

Crowe didn’t take the bait, yet “Newton’s” wacky “dissidence is German-associated” idea found its way into Kalichman’s “Denying AIDS” (pp. 54, 145;  see “The German Connection: Kalichman’s not-so-Komical Kaper #3”, 21 March 2009 ).

Again, my eyebrows shot toward the roof when I read (p. 74):
“Bauer had hoped that his book would land him an interview on the Today Show and change the course of AIDS research and treatments.”
Anyone who knows me even slightly would not recognize me as the fellow Kalichman writes about. If I were to dream about interviews on TV, it would be in terms of Bill Moyer, Gwen Ifill, maybe Tavis Smiley — a conversation, in other words, with intelligent people, not pseudo-substantive “entertainment” get-togethers interrupted every 5 minutes by commercial breaks (I was frankly shocked that President Obama was willing to sit through a couple of commercial breaks when talking with Jay Leno). At any rate, something like the Today Show would be a nightmare for me, not a hope or a dream; and if I were ever persuaded to do it, it would be a grit-teeth-and-endure-it experience. I don’t even recall whether I’ve ever watched the Today Show, Good Morning America, or others of that ilk; and if I did, it was because someone like Obama was on. So where did Kalichman get that from? Why, from “Newton’s” suggestions to Bauer:
14 October 2007, Newton to Bauer:
“Dr. Bauer, …
Why has there not been BIG media on your book? I would think there should be.
Has Peter Duesberg had contact with you? . . . . He could probably get you on the Today Show and Fox News!
If I knew of a way to help I surely would.”

and 3 February 2008:
“…I have been watching for you on the Today Show…but I guess they have not zeroed in on you yet!…”

15 October:
“I have been wondering what your goals are? I mean what would you like to see happen as a result of your book? I suspect you do not expect the orthodoxy to reverse course and refute the idea that HIV causes AIDS? It also does not sound like you expect your book to vindicate Peter Deusberg and salvage his image.
What would you like to see happen??”


After a while, having learned that Crowe had traced Newton to Kalichman, I grew tired of the cat-and-mouse and hinted as much by making my responses shorter and curter, and by giving Newton-Hyde-Kalichman the opportunity to realize his ineptness. He had (10 October 2008, 12:40:03 PM) shed his crocodile tears for Culshaw:
“I just learned that Rebecca Culshaw has lost her job. I saw a web posting saying something about how she has terminated.”

Naturally I asked (10:30:48 PM): “I hadn’t seen this, do you have a URL?”

OOPS! Of course he didn’t, as I well knew, for I have Google Alerts that would pick up anything like that. All Kalichman knew was that J P Moore had been harassing high-level administrators to fire Rebecca Culshaw, Andy Maniotis, and perhaps others as well (“Questioning HIV/AIDS: Morally Reprehensible or Scientifically Warranted?”, J. Amer. Physicians & Surgeons, 12 [#4, Winter 2007] 116- 120). So, “Newton” replied lamely (11:04:47 PM):
“I cannot find the URL now. But it was pretty clear that she did not get her tenure and was asked to depart.”

Likely story. Graduate student “Newton” finds something on the Web but can’t find it again a few hours later.


Chapter 5 will  describe how Kalichman actually became “Newton” in physical reality, not merely as a pseudonym.

Posted in experts, HIV skepticism, Legal aspects, prejudice | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Beware the Internet: “reviews”, Wikipedia, and other sources of misinformation

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/04/11

A recent Colbert Report (TV Comedy Channel)  featured Steven Johnson and his book, “The Invention of Air”. Practicing one-upmanship, Colbert described a fictitious work whose title he appeared to make up on the spur of the moment. Johnson responded at once, “And tomorrow there’ll be a Wikipedia entry for it”.

I was pleased by this indication that the unreliability of Wikipedia has attained shibboleth status in the conventional wisdom of the popular culture. We teachers have long been troubled by the willingness of students, writing “research” papers or projects, to rely naively on material they gather off the Web. There have been serious discussions among academics for well over a decade, how to meld the desirable openness of the Internet with the quality control that serious work requires, but there’s no solution in sight. Quality control takes time and effort, and the Internet is free, and no one has devised a process by which Internet journals or other Web publications that generate trivial income can find the wherewithal to effect quality control.

The idealists who first created the embryonic Internet were research scientists who never imagined that the disinterested sharing of honest information among researchers, for which they created this medium, would almost at once be exploited by spammers, scammers, and hackers. I suspect that those who created Facebook and the like didn’t intend it to be used for purposes of identity theft. I imagine those who created blogging software didn’t do so in order to allow frustrated ne’er-do-wells to vent their spleen at their betters. Still, that’s what often happens. I imagine intended informative reviews of books to be posted, not character assassinations; and surely the creator of Wikipedia thought that it would attract idealistic, disinterested individuals wanting to share their authentic knowledge and understanding. However, in the words of Robbie Burns,

The best-laid schemes o’ mice an ‘men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain . . . .

A year or two ago, a friend I had acquired in the 1980s through a mutual interest in the Velikovsky Affair had sent me this e-mail:
FYI, you have a ‘stub’ entry in Wikipedia which begins ‘Henry H. Bauer is editor of the fringe science publication Journal of Scientific Exploration.’
Then lists your educational background, employment, and your 1986 and 2001 books, with links to your publications and personal webpage. . . .
It invites someone to add some ‘beef’ to this ‘stub’.
Just so’s you know,  L—-“

Around the same time, some of my colleagues in the Society for Scientific Exploration voiced concern over how the Society and its Journal (which I edited from 2000 until the end of 2007) was being characterized on Wikipedia. Fairly quickly we learned that it’s futile to attempt corrections if even a single person is determined to keep the entry to their liking, deleting or changing one’s corrections almost as soon as they are made. The procedures that purportedly safeguard Wikipedia against malicious entries simply aren’t up to the job of bringing objective and fair consideration, most especially where unorthodox views or anti-mainstream claims are concerned; no reasonable arbitration or compromise is feasible when one side comprises fanatical propagandists for their “truth”, for whom “all’s fair…”, “anything goes”.

As Steven Johnson indicated on the Colbert Report, Wikipedia is just another illustration that there’s no quality assurance on the Internet; nor could there be, given its great virtue of universal accessibility. Anyone who uses Wikipedia must surely learn quite quickly that there’s no quality control. There are two obvious corollaries:
1. You trust what’s in Wikipedia (or on the Internet in general) at your peril.
2. To correct mis-information in Wikipedia or on the Internet is literally impossible. Even should you succeed, after tortuous interactions with biased people, in modifying incorrect Wikipedia entries to be merely pervaded by bias and innuendo rather than gross factual errors, the same people who are determined to spread mischievous mis-information can just place what’s removed from Wikipedia on their own websites, on blogs, in discussion groups — and, just like at Wikipedia, they can do so anonymously.

So I stopped paying attention to my “biography”, or that of the Society for Scientific Exploration, or any such entry, in Wikipedia. (Which is not to say that everything in Wikipedia is bad, of course. On non-controversial matters the entries can be unexceptionable. The trouble is, unless you’re already familiar with a subject, you won’t know that a very different story might exist, that there exists a controversy not mentioned in Wikipedia.)

Another place for mischief on the Internet is Anyone can post “reviews” of books. I think the first time I realized this was with the intemperate reaction from HIV/AIDS vigilantes to Rebecca Culshaw’s fine book, “Science Sold Out”. In particular, there was a long rant from AIDStruther Kenneth W. Witwer, a graduate student at Johns Hopkins; Witwer’s piece was quite striking in describing as mis-statements of fact what are demonstrably accurate statements of fact, for example, that “HIV prevalence in the US has remained constant since at least 1985” — the accuracy of that statement of Culshaw’s can be checked by anyone who cares to look at the original sources (several of which are cited at p.1 of my own book).

The same Witwer later posted an equally calumnious “review” of my book. Unfortunately I didn’t make a copy of it at the time, and it was later withdrawn. But around the same time, my friend alerted me that my Wikipedia entry had now been made even more derogatory, and he copied me on his e-mail to someone who is interested in these matters:

“J—,  Subject editor on Wikipedia is a very ornery dude who insists on phrasing everything in Henry Bauer’s entry as negatively as possible.
He insists, among other things, on calling J. Sci. Explor. ‘a fringe science publication’ after I changed it to something like ‘a scholarly, refereed journal that published material mostly ignored by mainstream science’.
… Got any suggestions for how to deal with this obstinacy and mean-spiritedness?
The NIH URLs used to rebut the claim that HIV does not cause AIDS are b.s., worthless propaganda, unsigned, and unsourced. How to deal with these as sub-prime sources?  The editors who are opposing Bauer seem to think that medicine is infallible as though it never made any mistakes on the cause of ulcers or cholesterol causing heart disease….

When I checked “my” revised “biography”, I found much the same calumny there as had been in Witwer’s “review” on

I suppose each one of us has to learn about this sort of thing for himself, but perhaps this blog post may be of some use to those who haven’t encountered such Internet untruths themselves or haven’t thought about it. I started drafting what I’m now writing after receiving an e-mail from someone who has been studying the HIV/AIDS arguments as an academic project and as an outside observer:

“Dear Professor Bauer,
It seems I have just been causing more trouble.
I have tried to defend you on Wikipedia, despite kind warnings from one “ludwigs2” that the more I accomplish, the more the ‘anti-fringe’ crowd will push back (in this long thread).
Before, your article stated that ‘Bauer hypothesises that African Americans are more likely to test HIV-positive because of supposed genetic mutations’, to which I objected because I thought that ‘mutations’ should be replaced by ‘adaptations’, and that your reasoning and your words in support of this view should also be presented. After all, one wouldn’t say that dark skin is due to a ‘genetic mutation’. Now, that part is unchanged, but additionally the article says ‘Bauer claims that African Americans are more sexually promiscuous and use more illegal drugs than other groups, but says sex and drug use are not involved in AIDS since, according to him, Native Americans are also sexually promiscuous and have high drug use but do not often test positive for HIV (p.64)’ which is even more egregious in my view, since it neglects to state that you were associating both groups with risky behaviour via poverty, and besides which my impression of that passage on p. 64 of your book was that it was a hypothetical line of reasoning which you contradict elsewhere. . . .
Best wishes and sorry for what is happening on Wikipedia,

Well, yes, that stuff about promiscuity and drug abuse that, I’m told, is (or was for a time) in Wikipedia is the very opposite of what I argue in my book, the earlier articles, and my blog posts. Still, the Wikipedia entry gives the title of my book, so interested people can look into it for themselves, and there are links to my personal website and to several of my publications; anyone who cares to use those links and go to those source can easily get accurate information. As for the calumny directed at me by people who are afraid to attach their names to it (which includes the administrators or subject editors at Wikipedia), I said a little about it in “Defenders of the HIV/AIDS Faith: Why Anonymous?”, 6 November 2008:
“But why would AIDStruth groupies and other supporters of mainstream views be unwilling to communicate openly and honestly? What are they afraid of? Do they sense subconsciously that they have no substantive grounds to stand on and that they must fight by innuendo and attempted character assassination? Why are they ashamed to let others know who they are?”

But perhaps it’s even more astounding when people like Kenneth W. Witwer (and Seth Kalichman, J P Moore, Mark Wainberg) are apparently NOT ashamed of openly and publicly directing abuse at those whose arguments they cannot counter.

Posted in HIV skepticism, Legal aspects, prejudice, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

State of HIV/AIDS Denial: Carcinogenic HAART

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/11/21

“Cognitive dissonance” is the social scientists’ way of saying, “Not seeing what we don’t wish to see”. “Being in denial” has crept into common usage to describe the same phenomenon; “State of Denial” is Bob Woodward’s book about that situation in the Bush White House.

The HIV/AIDS scene is replete with illustrations [“True Believers of HIV/AIDS: Why do they believe despite the evidence?, 30 October 2008; “’SMART’ study begets more cognitive dissonance”, 11 June 2008; Death, antiretroviral drugs, and cognitive dissonance, 9 May 2008; HIV/AIDS illustrates cognitive dissonance, 29 April 2008]. The mainstream refuses to see that what HIV tests detect is not infectious (The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory). It ignores the death statistics which show that life spans are not being lengthened by “highly active antiretroviral treatment” [“HAART saves lives — but doesn’t prolong them!?“, 17 September 2008]. Somehow, publications and propaganda laud “lifesaving HAART” even though it is the very opposite, causing organ failures and cancers:

“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” [emphasis added]; see p. 13 in the 29 January 2008 version of the NIH Treatment Guidelines.

In states of denial, the same unwished-for discovery is made, reported — and then ignored; over and over again. The cited statement was already in the 1 December 2007 version of the Treatment Guidelines, citing a presentation made in February 2007 (Reference 102 in the quote is D’Arminio Monforte et al., “HIV-induced immunodeficiency and risk of fatal AIDS-defining and non-AIDS-defining malignancies”, 14th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, 25-28 February 2007, Los Angeles, CA, Abstract 84). It’s been known, in other words, at least since early 2007, that anti-retroviral treatment significantly increases the incidence of certain cancers. Yet in November 2008, the HIV/AIDS scene and the media reporting that scene treat it as “news” when a meta-analysis re-confirms this fact:

“Higher Risk of Certain Cancers Being Recorded in HIV-Positive People” [Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 19 November  2008]

“Meta-analysis” means the collation and analysis of previously published studies; in this case, no fewer than 11 from around the world:  “Shiels and her colleagues drew their conclusions by analyzing 11 U.S. and international studies comparing cancer rates of HIV patients and the general population”. The meta-analysis merely dots i’s and crosses t’s on what was already rather evident from study after study.

Note too the same misleading reportage as with “HIV-associated” lipodystrophy [“Misleading is worse than lying . . .”, 10 November 2008]. It is misleading to speak of a higher risk of cancer in “HIV-positive” individuals: that risk has not been found among the long-term non-progressors, the elite controllers, or the many healthy HIV-positive individuals who have managed to stay clear of the official HIV/AIDS system; the increased incidence of cancer is only among those individuals who are receiving HAART. Not that this should be any surprise, for oncology has long recognized that individuals successfully “cured” of a given cancer by chemotherapy or radiotherapy incur an increased risk of contracting some other cancer by about a decade later. The biological effects of HAART chemicals are rather similar to those of cancer chemotherapeutics, so it is only to be expected that, about a decade after the introduction of HAART, an increased incidence of various cancers begins to show up among people receiving HAART.

“Physicians in the U.S. are reporting a higher risk for certain types of cancers — such as liver, head, neck and lung — in people living with HIV/AIDS, raising concerns that a cancer epidemic is imminent in the population, the Baltimore Sun reports. According to the Sun, Meredith Shiels, a doctoral candidate at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, presented a paper on Tuesday at the seventh annual American Association for Cancer Research International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research that said people living with HIV [again: instead of “people on HAART”] are twice as likely as the general population to develop cancers not previously linked with the virus. Other studies have found that people living with HIV have as much as a 10 times greater chance of developing certain cancers compared with the general population. William Blattner, an associate director of the University of Maryland Institute of Human Virology, said researchers are ‘really at the first stages of systematically looking at the epidemic and fully looking at cancer.’ He added that ‘[b]efore, you died from AIDS, so you didn’t have time to develop cancer. … The unusual observation is the cancers are occurring at a much younger age’” [emphasis added].

Yes. “Unusual” for HIV-positive individuals, but not unusual for people being fed cytotoxic drugs for a decade. Then comes yet more denial and cognitive dissonance:

Although researchers do not know the exact reasons for the increased risk of developing some cancers, there are several theories as to why HIV-positive people are more susceptible, such as the increased life expectancy due to antiretroviral drugs” [emphasis added]: but that — living longer — has just been excluded, in the immediately preceding sentence, no less: these cancers are, “unusually”, occurring at a young age, in other words, not because people are living to the ripe old ages where these cancers are normally encountered.

The real reason creeps in only as a subordinate clause: “weakened immune systems related to the virus or the effects of antiretrovirals” [emphasis added].
Could this unobtrusiveness be other than deliberate? In any case, it’s followed by a truly bizarre suggestion:
the likelihood of increased high-risk behaviors in people living with HIV”[emphasis added]. Can they be serious? How can a Kaiser Report disseminate something like this? What sort of high-risk behavior, by HIV-positive people or by anyone else, can bring on cancers at an unusually young age?! Continually inhaling nitrites (“poppers”), perhaps?
Of course, there is a high-risk behavior that HIV-positive people are very likely to display: accepting anti-retroviral treatment. But I doubt that this is what was meant.

“The Sun reports that a well-known researcher ‘wonders’ if antiretrovirals could be a carcinogen” [emphasis added]. I suppose that any mainstream researcher who is aware of the facts and is trying to draw attention to them without being excommunicated and losing his grants might put it like that; it would be too personally dangerous to point out that anti-retroviral drugs are known carcinogens.

It ought to be common knowledge that the “war on cancer” nurtured virologists looking for viral causes of cancer for a couple of decades before this became recognized as a wild-goose chase, and mainstream views turned toward “oncogenes” as cancer-causing. Somehow, though, HIV/AIDS pundits have managed to turn the fact that viruses have NOT been found to cause human cancers into its very opposite:

many cancers found in people living with HIV are known to be caused by viruses, such as anal, head, neck and cervical cancers — which have been linked to the human papilloma virus — and liver cancer, which has been linked to hepatitis”. Words simply failed me at this barefaced lie. At least, until I came to the next sentence, and saw wherefrom these assertions apparently stemmed:

“Mark Wainberg, director of the McGill University AIDS Center in Montreal”: The guy who wants to put AIDS Rethinkers and HIV Skeptics into jail [The Other Side of AIDS; “Flight from the AIDS police”]. The guy who wants them to be fired from their jobs (“AIDS and the dangers of denial”, Globe and Mail, 4 July 2007). The guy responsible for introducing one of the AZT-analog carcinogens (3TC, lamivudine).

When you have a fundamentally wrong theory, facts become quite difficult to explain, and an endless variety of conundrums are generated — all of them suitable topics for grant proposals, of course [“The Research Trough — where lack of progress brings more grants”, 10 September 2008]. Thus, the notion that the normal immune systems offers some protection against cancer leads to the suggestion that HIV-positive people tend to get cancers at a higher rate because they are immune-compromised:
“However, people with HIV who develop cancer do not ‘always have the weakest immune systems, further confounding researchers,’ . . . Eric Engels, a researcher at the National Cancer Institute studying HIV/AIDS and lung cancer, said research into how the immune system and cancer interact could provide a wider application than just helping people living with HIV. ‘This research has implications for people who have a healthy immune system, too’”.

“ . . . cases of lung cancer among people living with HIV are increasing, and a 2003 study . . .  found 80 cases of HIV-positive lung cancer patients out of a total 12,000 lung cancer patients . . . . people living with HIV have a three to five times higher risk of developing lung cancer than the general population, with a high risk even when controlled for smoking. He [Engels] also said the median age of lung cancer patients who are living with HIV is 46, compared with 64 among the general population. ‘The deaths here were overwhelmingly cancer-related. They were not due to AIDS . . . these patients die and they die quickly,’ with an average period of six years between HIV diagnosis and lung cancer diagnosis. . . . although the cancer is not caused by a virus, it could be the result of an unknown infection, scarring of the lungs or some type of inflammation, which could explain why it is increasingly being found in people living with HIV” — WHO ARE BEING FED TOXIC CHEMICALS THAT ALSO ACT AS CARCINOGENS!

Recall that infection by HIV is supposed to be followed by an average period of a decade or so before any signs of illness evidence. That estimate of the “latent period” grew longer over the years because experience showed that HIV-positive people simply weren’t becoming more quickly ill; THEY WERE NOT GETTING CANCER, EITHER, WITHIN 6 YEARS. That’s been happening only in the era of “lifesaving” HAART.

“Shiels said that the trend in cancer development in HIV-positive people might have been detected earlier if antiretrovirals were developed sooner. ‘Perhaps if they had lived longer, we would have seen this 10 years ago’”.
But HIV-positive individuals who avoid anti-retrovirals have been living longer (see, for example, The Other Side of AIDS; Christine Maggiore, What If Everything You Thought You Knew about AIDS Was Wrong? ) They are not the ones getting these cancers at “unusually” young ages.

And here’s another delicious conundrum that was reported in only some of the media:
“Men with HIV were 2.3 times more likely, while women with the virus are about 1.5 times more likely to develop these other cancers . . . . However, people with AIDS have similar incidence rates of these cancers as the public at large” [emphasis added] (“Non-AIDS Cancer Risk Higher for Those With HIV”).

“Kevin Cullen, director of the University of Maryland Greenebaum Cancer Center, said that 10 or 20 years ago ‘virtually no one [living with HIV] who developed cancer could survive rigorous cancer treatment,’ but antiretrovirals have allowed people to successfully undergo cancer treatment” — thus contradicting directly what was just cited from Eric Engels, that these lung-cancer patients were dying “quickly”.


This mish-mash brought me, as so often, to the realization that no one is apparently keeping a global, overall watch on the HIV/AIDS scene; least of all, unfortunately, the media, be it the mainstream organs or those specializing (like the Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report) in medical matters. Almost daily, certainly weekly, there come these mutually inconsistent, ignorant-of-recent-history, cognitively dissonant pronouncements, at odds with published facts, replete with disproved shibboleths — for example, that “HIV used to be a death sentence. Now, with the advent of highly effective antiretroviral drug therapy, people with HIV can be expected to live nearly as long as the general population” (“People with HIV at increased risk for cancer, study finds”; “As life span has increased”). The latter source also asserts that “some cancers have been linked to HIV, such as Kaposi’s sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and cervical cancer” — when it’s been accepted for more than a decade that HIV is NOT the cause of Kaposi’s sarcoma or cervical cancer, which are (currently) blamed respectively on HHV-8 (or KSHV) and HPV.

The whole business is an utter disgrace to several professions. As Charles A. Thomas said many years ago:

“This thing is going to be studied long after our time. This is so much greater than the Lysenko Affair [which had set Soviet agriculture and biology back decades]. I’m urging all of my colleagues to save all of their papers and make the historical record as complete as possible. What was the dynamics of the events that led to poisoning people with AZT? Because this is a major historical event that is going to be studied for 100 years — how the United States gave AIDS to the world” (HIV = AIDS: Fact or Fraud?).

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, clinical trials, experts, HIV absurdities, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Defenders of the HIV/AIDS Faith: Why Anonymous?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/11/06

I’ve used the Internet pretty much from its inception, at first chiefly for e-mail, of course. I tried a few on-line lists, groups, discussions on various topics pertinent to my academic interests — for example, fraud in science — or on my hobbies — Loch Ness monsters, say. These were open to all who wanted to participate, and participants were open about their identity; electronic communication was just adding some speed and convenience to exchanges that we’d been engaged in via letters, conferences, phone calls.

Some of the discussion groups touched on fairly controversial matters, like political correctness and associated sensitive topics like race, IQ, affirmative action. Still, we knew who everyone was, where they worked, what their professional credentials were; and — possibly for that reason — lack of civility was rare, even as disagreements could be stark and forcefully expressed; ad hominem innuendo or direct attacks didn’t feature. I didn’t stay long with any list or discussion, though, because I so rarely learned anything new.

I came late to the ranks of HIV/AIDS Rethinkers and Skeptics. It was around 1995 that I first discovered, through reading Ellison & Duesberg, “Why we will NEVER win the war on AIDS”, that some people question whether HIV is the cause of AIDS — people with impressive and relevant credentials. I was sufficiently intrigued to read more. Bialy’s scientific biography of Duesberg caused me to consult primary sources about HIV tests, and thereby to discover that “HIV” is not infectious and doesn’t correlate with “AIDS”. Astonished, bemused, I looked for people with whom I could discuss the matter, and that caused me to visit, and sometimes to send comments and questions to, a number of web-sites and blogs. In too many cases, I was appalled at the level of “flaming” as well as the lack of substantive discussion, indeed the prevalence of violently asserted claims on factual matters without the benefit of supporting citations to reliable publications.

Those experiences informed my decisions when I set up this present blog as a means of furthering substantive discussion:

“All comments are moderated, and may be edited.
I have a  great preference for comments that are concise, substantive, and not ad hominem.
Giving a fake e-mail address makes it less likely that your comment will be accepted.
. . .  please understand that I can only respond if the e-mail address you give is a valid one. For example, e-mails cannot be delivered to ‘’.”

Because of the blog, I’ve learned a great deal from commentators and correspondents, and I’ve been stimulated to look into an increasing range of HIV/AIDS-related matters. Tony Lance provided to the salient question, “So what did cause AIDS?”, a highly plausible suggestion supported by a large variety of published evidence [“What really caused AIDS: Slicing through the Gordian Knot”, 20 February 2008]. Invitations to comment on various “news” items led me to look, for the first time, into statistics about deaths from “HIV disease”, and to discover another clear disproof, or set of disproofs, of HIV/AIDS theory [“’HIV Disease’ is not an illness”, 19 March 2008;  “HAART saves lives — but doesn’t prolong them!?”, 17 September 2008]. I’ve heard from a number of individuals who have experienced at first hand the psychological and physical damages wrought on healthy people by diagnoses of “HIV-positive” followed by antiretroviral “therapy”; and those interactions in particular keep me constantly aware of how important it is that HIV/AIDS theory be publicly discarded.

But I’ve also learned quite a lot about the deplorable behavior of fanatical HIV/AIDS true-believers, groupies, and vigilantes [“Dissenting from HIV/AIDS theory”, 8 December 2007]. It’s not only the disgustingly ad hominem nature and sadly lacking-in-intellectual-substance content of so many of the “mainstream” HIV/AIDS blogs, I’ve also been taken aback at underhanded approaches, via comments sent to my blog as well as e-mails to me direct, from individuals (I suppose individuals, but of course it could be groups) whose purpose is not to discuss substantive issues but to find ways to discredit and undermine AIDS Rethinking. For example, a graduate student evidently took the trouble to read my memoir about academic deaning and at least some  issues of a newsletter that I had edited for a number of years in order to mis-interpret as homophobic and racist a few out-of-context quotes in a “review” of my book on (that review is no longer there, at one time there was a note that it had been withdrawn by the author, but even that note is no longer there). Another vigilante posed as a graduate student in personal e-mails to me, fishing for information about Rethinker doings. Several comments have been submitted anonymously to my blog — for example by “Fulano de Tal” [“John Doe and his ilk: pitfalls of pseudonymity”, 28 August 2008], alleging mistakes in factual matters, yet when I requested citation of sources for those facts, I never heard more.

Those communications led me to ponder the apparently common practice of participating anonymously in Internet discussions. Why would one do that? (I would be interested to learn of any scholarly discussions of Internet anonymity, how the practice started, what justifications there might be for it, and so on.)

I can’t bring myself to engage in discussion with people who are unwilling to tell me who they are. It throws immediate doubt on their bona fides. Signing one’s name to one’s opinions seems to me the natural as well as proper thing to do, and I’m one of those who always signed manuscript reviews even when the journal policy did not require it. I think it’s a useful form of self-discipline, to ensure that one is being as honest and unbiased as humanly possible.

I can understand why whistle blowers must practice anonymity — except with the appropriate investigating authority to whom they bring grievance; and I understand why HIV/AIDS Skeptics are sometimes forced to remain anonymous in view of the career-threatening activities boasted of by people of the ilk of Wainberg and Moore (“AIDS and the dangers of denial”, Globe and Mail, 4 July 4 2007). But why would AIDStruth groupies and other supporters of mainstream views be unwilling to communicate openly and honestly? What are they afraid of? Do they sense subconsciously that they have no substantive grounds to stand on and that they must fight by innuendo and attempted character assassination? Why are they ashamed to let others know who they are?

Posted in HIV skepticism, Legal aspects | Tagged: , , , | 14 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: