HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Posts Tagged ‘Neville Hodgkinson’

Public Debate about Leung film

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/10/25

On 28th October, the SPECTATOR magazine (London UK) arranged a debate on the occasion of a screening of Brent Leung’s “House of Numbers”.

I await with high interest a report on that debate, which featured Professor Beverly Griffin (Imperial College London), Dr Joe Sonnabend (founding editor of AIDS Research), Rt. Hon. Lord Norman Fowler (former UK Secretary of State for Health), Charles Geshekter (emeritus, California State University) as well as Brent Leung, Director/Producer.

In the meantime, one can read this preview of the debate by Neville Hodgkinson already published at the SPECTATOR.

STOP PRESS, 26 OCTOBER:  Screening and debate were cancelled at very short notice, will be rescheduled.

I am writing to inform you that, with much regret, the event on “Aids – realism or denial” due to take place on Wednesday 28 October,  has been cancelled due to several members of the panel having pulled out at the last minute, leaving us with an unbalanced panel which would not make for a rounded discussion on the film.

The purpose of the event was to have a rational and balanced discussion in an area of science too often characterised by hysteria. House of Numbers is a controversial film and we wanted it scrutinised by leading authorities and to follow its showing with real debate encompassing a wide spectrum of opinion. It has proved very difficult to put together a panel which could do this. We thought we had managed but several last-minute defections have defeated us. We will look at staging this event at a later date with another, more dependable panel.

We apologise to you who signed up to attend, however, we have been left with no option but to cancel.

We will be fully reimbursing your ticket fees today and can confirm that the refund should show in your accounts by the end of the week.  We will be in touch should we manage to stage this event in the future.  In meantime, we would like to thank you for your support and encourage you to visit our website on http://www.spectator.co.uk/events to view our forthcoming events which may be of interest.

Yours sincerely

Phoebe Vela
Head of Corporate Affairs and Events

Events
Events Team
Press Holdings Media Group
22 Old Queen Street
London
SW1H 9HP
T – +44 (0)20 7961 0044
F – +44 (0)20 7961 0100
events@pressholdings.com

Posted in experts, HIV skepticism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Believing and disbelieving

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/07/03

(This is a long post. HERE is a pdf for those who prefer to read it that way).

“How could anyone believe that?” is a natural question whenever someone believes what is contrary to the conventional wisdom, say, that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, or that Loch Ness monsters are real animals.

Since the role of unorthodox views in and out of science has been the focus of my academic interests for several decades, I had to think about that question in a variety of contexts. My conclusion long ago was that this is the wrong question, the very opposite of the right question, which is,

“How does anyone ever come to believe differently than others do?” (1)

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

It’s a widespread illusion that we believe things because they’re true. It’s an illusion that we all tend to harbor about ourselves. Of course I believe what’s true! My beliefs aren’t wrong! It’s the others who are wrong.

However, we don’t acquire beliefs because they’re true, we acquire them through being taught that they’re true. For the first half-a-dozen or a dozen years of our lives, before we have begun to learn how to think truly for ourselves, as babies and children we almost always believe what parents and teachers tell us. Surely that has helped the species to survive. But no matter what the reason might be, there’s ample empirical evidence for it. For instance, many people during their whole lifetime stick to the religion that they imbibed almost with mother’s milk; those who reject that religion do so at earliest in adolescence.

That habit of believing parents and teachers tends to become ingrained. Society’s “experts”  — scientists and doctors, surrogate parents and teachers — tend to be believed as a matter of habit.

So how do some people ever come to believe other than what they’ve been taught and what the experts say?

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

I was prompted to this train of thought by receiving yet again some comments intended for this blog and which were directed at minor details, from people whom I had asked, long ago, to cut through this underbrush and address the chief point at issue: “What is the proof that HIV causes AIDS?”

Whenever I’ve asked this of commentators like Fulano-etc.-de-Tal, or Chris Noble, or Snout, or others who want to argue incessantly about ancillary details, the exchange has come to an end. They’ve simply never addressed that central issue.

And it’s not only these camp followers. The same holds for the actual HIV/AIDS gurus, the Montagniers and Gallos and Faucis. Fauci threatens journalists who don’t toe the orthodox line. Gallo hangs up on Gary Null when asked for citations to the work that made him famous.

Why can’t these people cite the work on which their belief is supposedly based?

Finally it hit me: Because their belief wasn’t formed that way. They didn’t come to believe because of the evidence.
The Faucis and Gallos came to believe because they wanted to, because a virus-caused AIDS would be in their professional bailiwick, and they were more than happy to take an imperfect correlation as proof of causation.
The camp followers came to believe simply because they were happy to believe what the experts say and what “everyone else” believes. Who are they to question the authority of scientific experts and scientific institutions?

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

To question “what everyone knows”, there has to be some decisive incentive or some serendipitous conjunction. I’ll illustrate that by describing how I came to believe some things that “everyone else” believes and some things that “everyone else” does not believe.

The first unorthodox opinion I acquired was that Loch Ness monsters are probably real living animals of some unidentified species. How did I come to that conclusion?
Serendipity set the stage. Reading has been my lifelong pleasure. I used to browse in the local library among books that had just been returned and not yet reshelved, assuming that these would be the most interesting ones. Around 1961, I picked from that pile a book titled Loch Ness Monster, by Tim Dinsdale. I recall my mental sneer, for I knew like everyone else that this was a mythical creature and a tangible tourist attraction invented by those canny Scots. But I thumbed the pages, and saw a set of glossy photos: claimed stills from a film! If these were genuine . . . . So I borrowed the book. Having read it, I couldn’t make up my mind. The author seemed genuine, but also very naïve. Yet his film had been developed by Kodak and pronounced genuine. Could it be that Nessies are real?
I was unable to find a satisfactory discussion in the scientific literature. So I read whatever other books and articles I could find about it. I also became a member of the Loch Ness Investigation, a group that was exploring at Loch Ness during the summers, and I followed their work via their newsletters — I couldn’t participate personally since I then lived in Australia.
A dozen years later, on sabbatical leave in England, I took a vacation trip to Loch Ness. More serendipity: there I encountered Dinsdale. Later I arranged lecture tours for him in the USA (where I had migrated in 1965). Coming to know Dinsdale, coming to trust his integrity, seeing a 35mm copy of his film umpteen times during his talks, brought conviction.
It had taken me 12-15 years of looking at all the available evidence before I felt convinced.

The unorthodox view that underwrites this blog is that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. How did I come by that belief in something that “everyone else” does not believe?
More serendipity. Having concluded in the early 1970s that Nessies were probably real, I became curious why there hadn’t been proper scientific investigations despite the huge amount of publicity over several decades. That led eventually to my change of academic field from chemistry to science studies, with special interest in heterodoxies. So I was always on the lookout for scientific anomalies and heresies to study. In the mid-1990s, I came across the book by Ellison and Duesberg, Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS (interesting info about this here ; other Ellison-Duesberg articles here).
Just as with Dinsdale’s book, I couldn’t make up my mind. The arguments seemed sound, but I didn’t feel competent to judge the technicalities. So, again, I looked for other HIV/AIDS-dissenting books, and wrote reviews of a number of them. Around 2005, that led me to read Harvey Bialy’s scientific autobiography of Duesberg. For months thereafter, I periodically reminded myself that I wanted to check a citation Bialy had given, for an assertion that obviously couldn’t be true, namely, that positive HIV-tests in the mid-1980s among teenage potential military recruits from all across the United States had come equally among the girls as among the boys. The consequences of checking that reference are described in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory.
As with Nessie, it had taken me more than ten years of looking into the available evidence to become convinced of the correctness of something that “everyone else” does not believe.

So am I saying that I always sift evidence for a decade before making up my mind?
Of course not. I did that only on matters that were outside my professional expertise.

Studying chemistry, I didn’t question what the instructors and the textbooks had to say. I surely asked for explanations on some points, and might well have raised quibbles on details, but I didn’t question the periodic table or the theory of chemical bonding or the laws of thermodynamics or any other basic tenet.

That, I suggest, is quite typical. Those of us who go into research in a science don’t begin by questioning our field’s basic tenets. Furthermore, most of us never have occasion to question those tenets later on. Most scientific research is, in Kuhn’s words (2), puzzle-solving. In every field there are all sorts of little problems to be solved; not little in the sense of easy, but in the sense of not impinging on any basic theoretical issues. One can spend many lifetimes in chemical research without ever questioning the Second Law of thermodynamics, say, or quantum-mechanical calculations of electron energies, and so on and so forth.

So: Immunologists and virologists and pharmacologists and others who came to do research on HIV/AIDS from the mid-1980s onwards have been engaged in trying to solve all sorts of puzzles. They’ve had no reason to question the accepted view that HIV causes AIDS, because their work doesn’t raise that question in any obvious way; they’re working on very specialized, very detailed matters — designing new antiretroviral drugs, say; or trying to make sense of the infinite variety of “HIV” strains and permutations and recombinations; or looking for new strategies that might lead to a useful vaccine; and so on and so forth. Many tens of thousands of published articles illustrate that there are no end of mysterious puzzles about “HIV/AIDS” waiting to be solved.

The various people who became activist camp followers, like the non-scientist vigilantes among the AIDStruth gang, didn’t begin by trying to convince themselves, by looking into the primary evidence, that the mainstream view is correct: they simply believed it, jumped on the very visible bandwagon, took for granted that the conventional view promulgated by official scientific institutions is true.

It is perfectly natural, in other words, for scientists and non-scientists to believe without question that HIV causes AIDS even though they have never seen or looked for the proof.

What is not natural is to question that, and the relatively small number of individuals who became HIV/AIDS dissidents, AIDS Rethinkers, HIV Skeptics, did so because of idiosyncratic and specific reasons. Women like Christine Maggiore, Noreen Martin, Maria Papagiannidou, Karri Stokely, and others had the strongest personal reasons to wonder about what they were being told: since they had not put themselves at risk in the way “HIV” is supposedly acquired, and since they were finding the “side” effects of antiretroviral drugs intolerable, the incentive was strong to think for themselves and look at the evidence for themselves.
Many gay men have had similar reason to question the mainstream view, and some unknown but undoubtedly large number of gay men are living in a perpetual mental and emotional turmoil: on one hand much empirical evidence of what the antiretroviral drugs have done to their friends, on the other hand their own doctors expressing with apparent confidence the mainstream view. So only a visible minority of gay men have yet recognized the failings of HIV/AIDS theory.
One of the first to do so, John Lauritsen, was brought to question the mainstream view for the idiosyncratic personal reason that, as a survey research analyst, he could see that the CDC’s classification scheme was invalid.
Among scientists, Peter Duesberg recognized some of the errors of HIV/AIDS theory because he understood so much about retroviruses and because he had not himself been caught up in the feverish chase for an infectious cause of AIDS. Robert Root-Bernstein, too, with expertise in immunology , could recognize clearly from outside the HIV/AIDS-research establishment the fallacy of taking immunedeficiency as some new phenomenon. Other biologists, too, who were not involved in HIV/AIDS work, could see things wrong with HIV/AIDS theory: Charles A. Thomas, Jr., Harvey Bialy, Walter Gilbert, Kary Mullis, Harry Rubin, Gordon Stewart, Richard Strohman, and many others who have put their names to the letter asking for a reconsideration.

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

To summarize:

Mainstream researchers rarely if ever question the basis for the contemporary beliefs in their field. It’s not unique to HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS researchers and camp followers never cite the publications that are supposed to prove that HIV causes AIDS for the reason that they never looked for such proof, they simply took it for granted on the say-so of the press-conference announcement and subsequent “mainstream consensus”.

The people who did look for such proof, and realized that it doesn’t exist, were:
—  journalists covering “HIV/AIDS” stories (among those who wrote books about it are Jad Adams, Elinor Burkett, John Crewdson, Celia Farber, Neville Hodgkinson, Evan Lambrou, Michael Leitner, Joan Shenton);
—  directly affected, said-to-be-HIV-positive people, largely gay men and also women like those mentioned above;
—  individuals for a variety of individual reasons, as illustrated above for John Lauritsen and myself;
—  scientists in closely related fields who were not working directly on HIV/AIDS.

That last point is pertinent to the refrain from defenders of HIV/AIDS orthodoxy that highly qualified scientists like Duesberg or Mullis are not equipped to comment because they have never themselves done any research on HIV or AIDS. But that’s precisely why they were able to see that this HIV/AIDS Emperor has no clothes — scientists working directly on the many puzzles generated by this wrong theory have no incentive, no inclination, no reason to question the hypothesis; indeed, the psychological mechanism of cognitive dissonance makes it highly unlikely that scientists with careers vested in HIV/AIDS orthodoxy will be able to recognize the evidence against their belief.
More generally, this is the reason why the history of science contains so many cases of breakthroughs being made by outsiders to a particular specialty: coming to it afresh, they are not blinded by the insider dogmas.

So there is nothing unique about the fact that the failings of HIV/AIDS theory have been discerned by outsiders and not by insiders, and that the insiders are not even familiar with the supposed proofs underlying their belief. Nor is it unique that the dogma has many camp followers who never bothered to look for the supposed proofs of the mainstream belief. What is unique to HIV/AIDS theory is the enormous damage it has caused, by making ill or actually killing hundreds of thousands (at least). The annals of modern medicine have no precedent for this, which is another reason why thoughtless supporters of HIV/AIDS orthodoxy may feel comfortable with it despite never having sought evidence for it.

So here’s the question to put to everyone who insists that HIV causes AIDS:

HOW  DID  YOU  COME  TO  BELIEVE  THAT?
WHAT  CONVINCED  YOU?

————————–
Cited:
(1) Henry H. Bauer, Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy, University of Illinois Press, 1984; chapter 11, “Motives for believing”.
(2) Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1970 (2nd ed., enlarged; 1st ed. 1962)

Posted in experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism, prejudice | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

Thinking so, makes it so

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/05/16

Talk about “placebo-controlled trials” is too easily taken to imply that “placebo” means “doing nothing”. That is far from true. In reality, placebo describes the phenomenon that unconscious and not-understood emotional or mental processes can produce powerful physical effects. A person given a dummy pill and told that it is a drug will often experience the feelings that the drug would induce. Someone given a drug that lowers blood pressure, say, who is told that it raises blood pressure, may actually experience a rise in blood pressure: “placebo” can actually be more powerful than physical medication.

Mainstream disciplines are beginning to recognize the power of the placebo response. The National Institues of Health held a workshop in 2000, “The Science of the Placebo: Toward an Interdisciplinary Research Agenda”. Several books by doctors, historians, and psychologists have reviewed what little is understood about the matter:

Arthur Shapiro & Elaine Shapiro, “The powerful placebo — from ancient priest to modern physician”, Johns Hopkins, 1997

Anne Harrington (ed.), “The placebo effect–an interdisciplinary exploration”, Harvard, 1997

Howard Brody with Daralyn Brody, “The placebo response: how you can release body’s inner pharmacy”, Cliff Street Books, 2000

Whereas the term “placebo” is widely recognized, its opposite, “nocebo” is not. Logically speaking, however, it seems likely that, if thinking one’s health will improve can tend to make that happen, thinking one’s health is declining can tend to make that happen.

Perhaps the best known such phenomena are in voodoo, where such rituals as sticking pins into an effigy representing an actual person can cause harm to that person, and in the Australian aboriginal ritual of bone-pointing, where a person waking to find a certain arrangement of bones in his vicinity recognizes it as death-causing and subsequently does die. Our culture tends to admit some efficacy for the placebo response but to consign nocebo as effective only among primitive people. Logically speaking, though, whatever mechanism can translate belief into physiological action can surely do it in both directions. A recent article in the New Scientist is a sensible discussion of nocebo with a few examples:
Helen Pilcher, “The science of voodoo: when mind attacks body”, 13 May 2009.

Nocebo is of clear pertinence to “HIV/AIDS”, given the psychological impact of a diagnosis of “HIV-positive” or of  “AIDS”, as several AIDS Rethinkers have emphasized at various times — Michael Ellner, Charles Geshekter, Neville Hodgkinson, Michael Geiger, Casper Schmidt, among others. But while a few mainstream researchers are taking placebo seriously, that remains to happen with nocebo.

Posted in clinical trials, experts, HIV as stress, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

HAART saves lives — but doesn’t prolong them!?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/09/17

Death rates are down, yet AIDS patients are not living longer! Why not?

(This is a long post, and includes at least one Table that is too large to be viewed conveniently in the same window as the text. If you prefer to read it as a pdf, here it is: haartdoesnt-prolong-lives)

In the early 1980s, a diagnosis of “AIDS” typically had been followed by death within a year or two. At that time, diagnosis was on the basis of Kaposi’s sarcoma or of manifest opportunistic fungal infections — Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia or candidiasis.

Following the adoption of “HIV-positive” as a necessary criterion for an AIDS diagnosis, an increasing range of non-opportunistic infections and other illnesses came to be included as “AIDS-defining” (for instance, tuberculosis, wasting, cervical cancer, etc.) — see Table 1; the most consequential changes were in 1987 and in 1993. The only basis for them was that people with some illnesses were quite often “HIV-positive”, in other words, there were correlations with “HIV-positive” status, not any proof that “HIV encephalopathy”, “HIV wasting disease”, or other additions to the list of “AIDS-defining” conditions were caused by “HIV”. Indeed, there could not be such proof since mechanisms by which “HIV” could cause illness have not been demonstrated, and they remain to this day a matter for speculation — even over the central issue of how HIV (supposedly) kills immune-system cells. An absurd consequence of these re-definitions, often cited by HIV/AIDS skeptics, is that a person suffering indisputably from tuberculosis (say) might or might not be classed as an HIV/AIDS patient, depending solely on “HIV” tests.

Table 1

(from Nakashima & Fleming, JAIDS 32 [2003] 68-85; numbers in parentheses after the dates refer to sources cited in that article)

As “AIDS” was being diagnosed increasingly among people less desperately ill than the original AIDS victims, survival time after diagnosis became longer.

The 1993 change extended the umbrella of “AIDS patient” to cover people with no manifest symptoms of ill health; in ordinary parlance, they weren’t ill, and consequently the interval between an AIDS diagnosis and death was bound to increase dramatically. This re-definition also expanded enormously the number of “AIDS cases”: about 70% of them are not ill (Walensky et al., Journal of Infectious Diseases 194 [2006] 11-19, at p. 16).

In 1996, earlier treatment for AIDS with high-dose reverse transcriptase inhibitors like AZT (ZDV, Retrovir) was increasingly superseded by “highly active antiretroviral treatment” (HAART), which has been generally credited with the prolonging of lives by a considerable number of years. According to the Antiretroviral Therapy Collaboration (Lancet 372 [2008] 293-99), life expectancy for 20-year-old HIV-positives had increased by 13 years between 1996 and 2005 to an additional 49 years; for 35-year-olds, the life expectancy in 1996-99 was said to be another 25 years. According to Walensky et al. (op. cit.), survival after an AIDS diagnosis now averages more than 14 years. Yet another encomium to antiretroviral drugs claims that “by 2004-2006, the risk of death in the first 5 years following seroconversion was similar to that of the general population” (Bhaskaran et al., JAMA 300 [2008] 51-59).

There is general agreement, then, that antiretroviral treatment has yielded substantial extension of life to people already diagnosed with AIDS. The interval between an AIDS diagnosis and death should now be measured in decades rather than a year or two.

As with so many other contentions of orthodox HIV/AIDS belief, however, this expectation is contrary to actual fact. The greatest risk of death from “HIV disease” comes at ages in the range of 35-45, just as at the beginning of the AIDS era. There was no dramatic increase in median age of death after 1996 following the adoption of HAART, see Table 2:

Table 2
Age Distributions of AIDS Diagnoses and AIDS Deaths, 1982-2004
from annual “Health, United States” reports http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hus/previous.htm#editions

The slow, steady increase in median ages of AIDS diagnosis and of death shown in Table 2 is pictured in Figure 1, below. The slope of the curve for median age of death shows no pronounced turn upwards following 1996 — even though the annual numbers of deaths decreased by more than half between 1994 and 1998. The somewhat steeper increase in median age of death from 1997 to 1999 and the parallel sharper increase in median age of AIDS diagnosis are both artefacts stemming from re-calculation of numbers under a revised International Diagnostic Code, see asterisked footnote to Table 2. The other slight discontinuity in the curve, around 1993, reflects the CDC’s revised definition of AIDS to include asymptomatic HIV-positive people with low CD4 counts.

Figure 1

The uppermost curve, the interval between median age of diagnosis and median age of death underscores that over the whole course of the AIDS era, no episode brought a significant increase in median age of death, other than the drastic expansion of definition in 1992-93. (Of course, the difference between the median ages for diagnosis and death in any given year cannot be equated with the interval between diagnosis and death for any given individual; the significant point in Figure 1 is just that median ages have changed at a gradual and almost constant rate from the very beginning of the AIDS era. HAART changed the death rate dramatically, but not the ages at which people died.)

This constitutes a major conundrum, a paradox: If HAART has extended life-spans by the claimed amounts, then why has not the median age of death increased dramatically? Why were so many AIDS patients still dying around age 45 in 2004?

The resolution of this conundrum is that the median ages of death are based on actually recorded deaths, whereas the claimed benefits of HAART were calculated on the basis of models incorporating many assumptions about the course of “HIV disease” and relying on contemporaneous death-rates [Science Studies 103: Science, Truth, Public Policy — What the CDC should know but doesn’t, 4 September 2008; CDC’s “model” assumptions (Science Studies 103a), 6 September 2008].

The numbers for total AIDS cases and for deaths, shown graphically in Figure 1, are listed in Table 3. There, column III shows the numbers of survivors in any given year, calculated from the difference between cases and deaths in earlier years plus new cases in the given year. Column IV has the percentage of survivors who died each year.

Table 3
Total AIDS cases, deaths, and
survivors “living with HIV/AIDS”,
1982-2004

From 1996 to 1997, the annual numbers of deaths halved, and of course the percentage of deaths among survivors also halved. Since 1997, only between 2.8 and 5.7% of living “HIV/AIDS” patients have been dying annually, which is in keeping with the claims of life-saving benefits made for HAART on the basis of death rates and computer models. But that conflicts with the age distribution of deaths, which has remained without major change during those same years.

If AIDS patients are now enjoying a virtually normal life-span, who are the people still dying at median age 45? If HAART is saving lives, why aren’t those lives longer?

The reason is that testing “HIV-positive” is actually irrelevant to the cause of death. It does not indicate infection by a cause of illness, it is an indicator analogous to fever. Many conditions may stimulate a positive “HIV” test: vaccination against flu or tetanus, for example; or tuberculosis; or drug abuse; or pregnancy; and many more (Christine Johnson, “Whose antibodies are they anyway? Factors known to cause false positive HIV antibody test results”, Continuum 4 (#3, Sept./Oct. 1996).

The likelihood that any given individual exposed to one of those conditions will actually test positive seems to correlate with the seriousness of the challenge to health; and it varies in a predictable manner with age, sex, and race (The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory). In any group of people, those who test “HIV-positive” are more likely to be or to become ill, so they are also more likely to die than those who do not test positive: just as in any group of people, those who have a fever are more likely to be ill and to die than those who do not have a fever. Also, of course, a fever does not necessarily presage death, nor does “HIV-positive” necessarily presage death; and in any group of people, some will die who never tested positive or who never had a fever. There’s a strong correlation between illness, death, and fever, but it’s not an inevitable one and fever is not the causative agent; there’s a strong correlation between illness, death, and “HIV-positive”, but it’s not an inevitable one and “HIV” is not the causative agent.

So: Among people “living with HIV/AIDS”, those who happen to die in any given year are simply ones whose “HIV-positive” status was associated with some actually life-threatening illness; and their ages were distributed just as ages are distributed in any group of “HIV-positive” people, with a median age at around 40, with minor variations depending on race and sex. For example, in 2000, there were more than 350,000 people “living with HIV/AIDS” (Table 3) whose median age was somewhere around 39.9 (Table 2: 39.9 was the median age of new diagnoses in that year. Survivors from the previous year , when the median age had been 39.4, would have had a median age — one year later — somewhere between 39.4 and 40.4; not as much as 40.4, because those dying in 1999 had a higher median age than those who didn’t die.) Of the 350,000 in 2000 with median age 39.9, 3.9% (14,457, Table 3) died; and the median age of those dying was 42.7. It’s only to be expected, of course, that — among any group of people at all — those who die have a somewhat higher average age than those who don’t die in that year.

The rate of death among “HIV/AIDS” patients declined markedly from 1987 to 1992 simply because “HIV/AIDS” was being increasingly defined to include illnesses less life-threatening than the original AIDS diseases of Kaposi’s sarcoma and established opportunistic fungal infections. Another sharp drop in death rates came after 1992 when people who were not even ill came to be classed as “HIV/AIDS” patients and comprised about 70% of such patients. The last sudden drop in death rates, with the introduction of HAART in 1996, resulted not from any lifesaving benefit of HAART but because the latter superseded the earlier, much more toxic, high-dose regimens of AZT. The supposed benefits of HAART are to decrease viral load and allow CD4 counts to rise; but these effects come slowly and cannot explain a sudden improvement in clinical condition sufficient to bring a halving of deaths from one year to the next; on the other hand, stopping the administration of a highly toxic substance can certainly bring numbers of deaths down immediately. These data indicate, therefore, that something like half (at least) of “HIV/AIDS” deaths from 1987 through 1996 — some 150,000 — are attributable to the toxicity of AZT.

Through all those drastic as well as slower changes in death rates, among those “HIV/AIDS patients” who died for any one of a large variety of reasons, the median age of the “HIV-positive” ones remained about the same as it had always been. “HIV/AIDS” patients are not living longer despite the change in death rate from an annual 60% or more to 3% or less.

As I said in a previous post [How “AIDS Deaths” and “HIV Infections” Vary with Age — and WHY, 15 September 2008], this paradox follows “from the manner in which HIV tests were designed and from the fact that AIDS was defined in terms of ‘HIV’”. The genesis of the tests has been described lucidly by Neville Hodgkinson (“HIV diagnosis: a ludicrous case of circular reasoning”, The Business, 16/17 May 2004, pp 1 and 4; similar in “The circular reasoning scandal of HIV testing”, thebusinessonline, 21 May 2006):

“It never proved possible to validate the [HIV] tests by culturing, purifying and analysing particles of the purported virus from patients who test positive, then demonstrating that these are not present in patients who test negative. This was despite heroic efforts to make the virus reveal itself in patients with Aids [sic, British usage] or at risk of Aids, in which their immune cells were stimulated for weeks in laboratory cultures using a variety of agents.
After the cells had been activated in this way, HIV pioneers found some 30 proteins in filtered material that gathered at a density characteristic of retroviruses. They attributed some of these to various parts of the virus. But they never demonstrated that these so-called ‘HIV antigens’ belonged to a new retrovirus.
So, out of the 30 proteins, how did they select the ones to be defined as being from HIV? The answer is shocking, and goes to the root of what is probably the biggest scandal in medical history. They selected those that were most reactive with antibodies in blood samples from Aids patients and those at risk of Aids.
This means that ‘HIV’ antigens are defined as such not on the basis of being shown to belong to HIV, but on the basis that they react with antibodies in Aids patients. Aids patients are then diagnosed as being infected with HIV on the basis that they have antibodies which react with those same antigens. The reasoning is circular.”

“HIV” tests were created to react most strongly to substances present in the sera of very ill gay men whose average age was in the late 30s (Michelle Cochrane, When AIDS began: San Francisco and the making of an epidemic, Routledge, 2004; cited at pp. 188-92 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory). That’s why people who are in some manner health-challenged are more likely than others to test “HIV-positive”, especially if they are aged around 40. Evidently the particular molecular species picked up by “HIV” tests are generated most prolifically around age 40, especially under the stimulation of various forms and degrees of physiological stress. That’s why the median ages for testing “HIV-positive” and for being diagnosed with AIDS (criterion: positive HIV test) and for dying from HIV/AIDS  (criterion: positive HIV test) are all the same, in the range 35-45.

Perhaps some of what “HIV” tests detect are so-called “stress” or “heat-shock” proteins. That gay men so often test “HIV-positive” might have to do with molecular species associated with “leaky gut syndrome” or other consequences of intestinal dysbiosis [What really caused AIDS: slicing through the Gordian knot, 20 February 2008].

Those are speculations, of course. What is not speculative, however, is that HAART does not prolong life* even as it lowers death rates. It is also clear that testing “HIV-positive” is no more than an indicator of some form of physiological challenge, not necessarily infection by a pathogen and specifically not infection by a retrovirus that destroys the human immune system.

————————————————-
* FOOTNOTE:
Even as it is obvious that HAART does not prolong life on the average, there are reliable testimonies that individuals have experienced clinical improvement on HAART, often dramatic and immediate. But, again, such immediate benefit cannot be the result of antiretroviral action, and likely reflects an antibiotic or anti-inflammatory effect, as suggested by Dr. Juliane Sacher [Alternative treatments for AIDS, 25 February 2008].

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, HIV and race, HIV as stress, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV tests, HIV varies with age, HIV/AIDS numbers | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: