HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Posts Tagged ‘Thailand’

Same old, same old ignorance and idiocies

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/03/13

Media coverage of HIV/AIDS is largely ignorant of most of the facts, so alarm is expressed over “changes” that aren’t changes; and obvious inferences aren’t drawn because they aren’t compatible with HIV/AIDS dogma. Here are a few items picked up by yesterday by my Google Alert:


Surprise?! Gay men test “HIV-positive” more frequently than others?!

You Are All Diseased: Gay Men’s HIV Infections Rising 44X Faster than Straight Men
We’re really trying to wrap our heads around this statistic, because it’s off the deep-end of troubling. ‘A new analysis released Wednesday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention,’ relays D.C. Agenda, ‘shows that the rate of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men, also referred to as MSM, is more than 44 times greater than that of other men and 40 times greater than that of women’” [emphasis added].
This is from a blog that focuses on “the gay agenda” and yet appears ignorant of the fact that gay men have tested “HIV-positive” an order of magnitude or two more often than, say, military personnel, ever since the beginning of the AIDS era — for example, Table 3 or Figure 22 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory.
So what’s there to “wrap heads around”?
Here’s the comment I posted on that blog:
“Gay men have tested ‘HIV-positive’ at rates that are an order of magnitude or two higher than for, say, Army personnel, ever since the beginning of the ‘AIDS era’. What seems so little understood is that this does NOT reflect relative rates of irresponsible sexual behavior because
1. HIV tests do not in themselves detect HIV infection, have never been approved for that purpose, and have a high rate of ‘false positives’ and cross-reactions with other conditions EVEN WHEN SO-CALLED CONFIRMATORY TESTS ARE USED; see
Press Release: ‘A positive routine “HIV test” is likely to be a false positive, scientist explains’, 2010/03/09
2. A positive HIV-test may OR MAY NOT reflect a threat to health. Most pertinent for gay men: certain practices that are generally thought of as hygienic, like rectal douching, actually enhance the chances of testing poz through damaging the intestinal microflora that are the first defense established by the immune system; see


Failure to aid drug users drives HIV spread — study
* ‘Critical problem’ in Russia, China, Malaysia, Thailand . . .
LONDON, March 1 (Reuters) — More than 90 percent of the world’s 16 million injecting drug users are offered no help to avoid contracting AIDS, and governments that ignore them risk a spiralling public health crisis, drugs experts said on Monday.
Injecting drug use is an increasingly important cause of HIV transmission in many countries around the world. Users can spread the virus in blood by sharing needles with an HIV-infected person, and pass it on by having unprotected sex.
Of the estimated 16 million injecting drug users worldwide, 3 million are thought to be HIV-positive, and drug users are thought to account for 10 percent of all those living with HIV.
In Russia, for example, around a million injecting drug users are living with HIV and some 65 percent of new HIV infections there are thought to come from injections.”
What those “drug experts” and other “experts” don’t recognize is the rather obvious inference that it’s the drugs themselves that are causing people to test “HIV-positive” and making people ill:
Routine “HIV” tests; herbal magic; Canadian natives at risk, 21 August 2009
“HIV/AIDS” in Estonia: Demographics and shibboleths, 18 August 2009
Estonian drug addicts don’t have much sex, 13 August 2009
Crack cocaine causes AIDS!, 12 August 2008
Cocaine and heroin aren’t good for you! — a Golden Fleece Award, 13 June 2008

[and, incidentally, that antiretroviral drugs can make things even worse — Drug peddlers’ ads ignore FDA, 5 November 2009]


HIV: getting all South Africans tested
12 March 2010
The government is scaling up its HIV/Aids prevention and treatment programme by shifting away from voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) to HIV counselling and testing (HCT), a new service delivery model that will see HIV testing become part of procedure at all health facilities.
In addition to the testing, all health care facilities will also be equipped to offer anti-retroviral treatment. Anyone who walks into a health facility will be offered a test as opposed to South Africans having to go for voluntary testing.”
So we can look forward to increasing numbers of healthy people being found “HIV-positive” — because of pregnancy, say — and subjected to antiretroviral drugs that make them unhealthy:  Press Release: “A positive routine ‘HIV test’ is likely to be a false positive, scientist explains”, 2010/03/09


Finally, the ones so truly crazy that you find it hard to believe that the story wasn’t made up:

Christian group says gay marriage more dangerous than smoking
By Jason Hancock 3/12/10 4:53 PM
Homosexual activity is ‘more dangerous for individuals who engage in it than is smoking,’ and because of this, state lawmakers need to pass a constitutional amendment overturning last year’s Iowa Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, according to Iowa Family Policy Center President Chuck Hurley. . . .
‘The Iowa Legislature outlawed smoking [in some public places] in an effort to improve health and reduce the medical costs that are often passed on to the state . . . . The secondhand impacts of certain homosexual acts are arguably more destructive, and potentially more costly to society than smoking. . . .
Iowa lawmakers need to pay attention to hard facts and not be persuaded by emotion laden half-truths” [emphasis added].
I need some help in understanding what those “secondhand impacts” might be. What I do understand is that Hurley imagines himself to be one who pays attention to hard facts and isn’t prone to emotional acceptance of half truths; he needs to learn from Robbie Burns: “Oh wad some power the giftie gie us to see oursels as others see us!”

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, experts, HIV absurdities, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV transmission, HIV/AIDS numbers, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2007/11/18

“BANGKOK (AFP) – Married people accounted for more than 40 percent of all new cases of HIV/AIDS in Thailand last year, the country’s health ministry said Thursday, despite an overall decrease in infections” (Google Alert, 12 October 2007).

“UN warns of Thai housewife HIV/AIDS crisis”, Apiradee Treerutkuarkul
“In Thailand, up to 40% of the 18,000 new cases found each year are housewives, which was previously identified as a low-risk group. . . . The number was high compared to so-called high-risk groups, such as men having sex with men (28%) and sex workers (10%)…. the situation has worsened in Papua New Guinea, where half of new AIDS cases are housewives. Housewives also account for at least 46% of all new cases in Cambodia”

“Press Release: Secretariat of The Pacific Community – SPC
SPC headquarters, Noumea, New Caledonia, Thursday May 31, 2007: Women are most at risk of contracting HIV from the men they should trust the most – their husbands….
This was the sobering message delivered to delegates at the 10th Triennial of Pacific Women, being held at Secretariat of the Pacific Community headquarters in New Caledonia.”

“‘Uganda: Rising HIV infection – where did we lose it?'”, by Dr. Chris Baryomunsi, New Vision (Kampala), 12 December 2006;
[Earlier, government programs had led to] significant behaviour change, especially among the young generation, by delaying sex, reducing the number of sexual partners, using condoms, testing for their HIV status and seeking improved health services. . . . The 2005 HIV survey by the Ministry of Health shows . . . married couples and rich women . . . to be at high risk.”

“‘Married couples top HIV infection rates in Uganda’, Kampala, 4 December 2006 (Xinhua); 2006-12-04 19:19:03
Apuuli Kihumuro, the director general of the Uganda AIDS Commission said . . . [that] between 1996 and 2005, 42 percent of the 130,000 HIV new infections occurred within wedlock. . . . [presumably] caused by unawareness of their HIV status, engaging in sex with multiple partners and their reluctance to use condoms. [Whereas] ‘The low rates of infection among the youth and unmarried people according to the findings are ascribed to their vigilance in having protected sex'”.

“New Vision (Kampala) 3 July 2007, reported by Fred Ouma
A detailed analysis of the 2004/05 Uganda HIV/AIDS Sero-Behaviourial Survey revealed the need to refocus HIV preventive measures to married people. . . . According to the survey, from an estimated 1.1 million Ugandans living with HIV/AIDS, married people were identified as the most risky group…. Contrary to the common perception that young people were at the greatest risk of HIV infection, the report shows an unprecedented shift, with 74% of new infection among people above 25 years of age. Only 10% of new infections were recorded among single people during the period of the study. New infections were highest (66%) among married, followed by 20% in widowed or divorced.”

” ‘A look at HIV – where are we now?’ Sabin Russell, San Francisco Chronicle, 13 August 2006;
In India, for example, 80 percent of women infected with HIV are monogamous married women. ‘The fastest rates of infection are among housewives and young women, because the men who go to sex workers also go home'”

“For a growing number of women in rural Mexico – and around the world – marital sex represents their single greatest risk for HIV infection. . . . because marital infidelity by men is so deeply ingrained across many cultures . . . . These findings are published in the June 2007 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. . . . The article’s lead author, Jennifer S. Hirsch, PhD, associate professor of Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, is principal investigator on a large comparative study showing that the inevitability of men’s infidelity in marriage is true across cultures. . . . in rural Mexico . . . in rural New Guinea and southeastern Nigeria” (

* * * * * *

The greatest danger of contracting HIV, says the official wisdom, comes from having sex without condoms with someone in a high-risk group, namely, injecting drug abusers or highly promiscuous gay men. Yet at the same time, according to the above reports, it is married women who are the group at greatest risk of contracting HIV–“around the world”: India, Thailand, Cambodia in South-East Asia, Uganda and Nigeria in Africa, Mexico in the Americas, Papua New Guinea and the whole Pacific region . . .
If you can believe that, then you will also send money to Nigeria to someone you had never heard of before and who offers by e-mail to share with you a large unclaimed inheritance. Or perhaps you are already part owner of a Brooklyn Bridge.
These reports, absurdly unbelievable on their face, illustrate several features of the misguided notion that HIV causes AIDS:

  • The media pass along, without further thought or critical comment, press releases from researchers and official institutions, no matter how contrary to plain common sense the “news” may be.
  • Innumerable reported facts and statistics clearly show that HIV-positive is not the sign of a sexually transmitted agent.
  • Not the media, not researchers, not official institutions, seem concerned to consider how reported findings could be consistent with the dogma of “HIV, the virus that causes AIDS”.

Would anyone believe it for even a moment, if it were claimed that married women in many parts of the world are at greater risk of contacting syphilis or gonorrhea or chlamydia, than are adolescents, or than are prostitutes (“sex workers”)? In Uganda, we are being asked to believe, the very same generation which as unmarried singles enabled the infection rate to decrease because of their scrupulously careful sexual behavior became, a few years later and when married, riotously and carelessly promiscuous. When it comes to “HIV/AIDS”, hysteria seems to trump thought every time.
Rather than accept such nonsense, one ought to recall certain established facts:

  • Testing HIV positive does not prove infection by a human immunodeficiency virus.
  • Testing HIV positive signifies only that a few proteins (or bits of genetic material) have been detected that are often found in people who are ill from any one of a large number of conditions, or who display a temporary reaction to a vaccination or a bout of flu, say (see posts of 12 and 16 November).
  • In any given group, the probability that an “HIV-positive” reaction will follow exposure to a given health challenge varies according to individual physiology, which correlates with (among other things) age, sex, and race. In every tested group, the probability of testing HIV-positive varies in predictable fashion with age, sex, and race–see The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory.
    The variation with age follows qualitatively this general scheme (from The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory):


This explains in quite straightforward fashion why married women and rich women are the most likely to be HIV-positive, followed by the widowed and the divorced, while the least likely to test HIV-positive are women under 25, adolescent women, and prostitutes: married women are on average of middle age, prostitutes and single women are on average younger, and the divorced and widowed who are likely on average to be beyond middle age.
The older women are, from teens into middle age, the more likely they are to be married; and as shown in the diagram, they are more likely to be HIV-positive; therefore married women are more likely to be HIV-positive than are single women. Beyond middle age, since widowed and divorced women are likely to be older than middle age, it follows again predictably that the widowed and divorced are less likely to be HIV-positive than married women. Women who are rich are likely to be older than those who are poor, since some will have acquired their wealth through marriage. And prostitutes (“sex workers”) are of course likely on average to be younger than married women.
That fits all the facts, and is vastly more plausible than the extent of unsafe promiscuity by husbands that the official view and explanation so readily assumes.
The absurdity of the official explanation is seen yet more starkly when one realizes how difficult it is to contract HIV through sexual intercourse: on average, the chance of becoming HIV-positive after unprotected sex with an HIV-positive person is about 1 in 1000; for citations to this fact in the published literature, see pp. 44 ff. in The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory.


The following comment was submitted in error to the ”Re Comments” page, but it seems to belong here:

fraorlando Says:
Tuesday, 11 December 2007 at 2:13 pm e
nteresting. I cannot remember such a high number of infections in this group. If I understand you right, you claim that this is because of accumulated exposure to different immune stressors in married or middle-aged woman, so HIV is a factor of time and number of immune stressors; not an actual virus–but why is it that the same pattern hasn’t shown up in all other countries as well? Also, married woman are not necessarily elderly, maybe this is true in Western countries, where more educated women may marry in their late 20 to early 30’s on average, but I don’t believe in those countries described in your article, where marriage is more a matter of survival and other options are limited. Also, I assume that the curve in your diagram works for every other infectious disease, since, as time passes by, chances increase to get infected by one or the other pathogen–so I cannot see why this is an argument against the viral theory of AIDS?
On another front, though, it’s interesting that HIV does not seem to co-vary with other STDs. But also, diseases are very complex, so my question is if it can be reliably shown that, in epidemiological studies, there are co-variations between every other STDs, but not HIV?

hhbauer responds:
Tuesday, 11 December 2007 at 2:56 pm e
Roland, thank you for insightful comments. I think you were responding to the post on “Getting Married” of 18 November?
My view is that HIV-positive may reflect any one of a large number of stresses, not necessarily an accumulation–see the diagram in “HIV TESTS, 16 November.
I don’t know how many countries would show this pattern, because there have never been truly population-wide studies done. Different countries and different researchers carry out tests for different reasons. All we can do is to try to interpret the data that happen to be available.
Certainly the age at which women get married can be very young in many of the countries from which these reports come. But on average they will stay married until death, whereas on average prostitutes tend to leave that profession before they are at the end of their lives. So married women on average will be older than prostitutes and, under my view, more likely to test HIV-positive at some time or other for some reason or other–especially pregnancy (HIV ABSURDITIES, 9 December).
I don’t believe that the age variation in that diagram is the same for other infectious diseases. As to STDs, adolescents and young adults are generally at highest risk; and certainly children below teenage are hardly at risk for STDs. Non-STD infectious diseases do not show a characteristic difference between males and females. So the fact that these variations of “HIV” show up in every group for which data are available, indicates that “HIV” is some non-specific physiological response.
I have a longer discussion in my book about differences between “HIV” and other STDs, including geographic variations. I don’t know about co-variation of STDs in general, I’m afraid.

Posted in HIV absurdities, HIV risk groups, HIV varies with age, sexual transmission, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »