Disproof of HIV/AIDS Theory HIV does NOT cause AIDS Henry Bauer SSE Meeting Boulder CO, June 2008 9/17/2018

Therefore “HIV” is not the cause of AIDS Introduction The results of “HIV”-tests show that “HIV” is not an infection and “HIV” numbers don’t correlate with “AIDS” numbers Therefore “HIV” is not the cause of AIDS The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory http://failingsofhivaidstheory.homestead.com/ http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/ Data on deaths from “HIV disease” offer simple as well as conclusive proof A few years ago I realized that published results of HIV tests show that what those tests detect is not an infection. I published an analysis in 3 articles in our Journal and last year in a book. Leaflets are on the books table, and a website has links to reviews of the book. Further commentary is on a blog. That blog brought me useful contacts and led to further reading and further insights, most recently a simple and direct proof that HIV/AIDS theory is wrong 9/17/2018

HIV/AIDS History Early 1980s, “AIDS” 1984, “HIV” “Latent period” between infection and AIDS ~ 10 years (HIV is a lentivirus) From AIDS to death, up to ~2 years 1987: AZT extends life of AIDS victims 1990: prophylactic AZT lengthens latent period Mid-1990s: Highly Active AntiRetroviral Treatment (HAART, “cocktails”) is “life-saving” for AIDS victims and extends latent period so much that HIV/AIDS is now “chronic but manageable” Here’s the essential background The “latent period” is a central and inescapable point, because observations over more than two decades confirm that, at any given time, most “HIV-positive” people are not ill in any noticeable way 9/17/2018

HIV/AIDS Timeline So from 1987 to date, the time from infection to death should have increased by significantly more than ten years. In other words, the ages at which “HIV-positive” people die should have shifted by at least a decade to older ages. 9/17/2018

HIV/AIDS Expectations Therefore the ages at which people die from AIDS or “HIV disease” should have shifted progressively to significantly higher ages 9/17/2018

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Table 42, p Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Table 42, p. 236, in “Health, United States, 2007” All the peaks are within the 35-44 range. Obviously, there has not been a shift of 10 years or more since 1987. (Data are only reported as averages for 10-year intervals, and so peak years are not accurate to better than ±5 to 10 years). Normalizing the curves shows more clearly that there’s been no significant shift: 9/17/2018

If drugs were extending lifespan, then the curve should be shifted as a whole, not changing in this way. The explanation for this change in skewness of the curve is a bit complicated, but the lack of wholesale shift of the curve is quite clear. I’ll discuss the skewness shift later if there’s time. 9/17/2018

Interpretations & Facts Infections moved to earlier ages to balance exactly the benefits of drug treatments ?!? No: peak age for testing “HIV”-positive has been constant, ~30s and 40s, 1985--to date Comparison of ages of infections and deaths: Data from public testing sites, 1995-98 prisons, hospitals, TB and STD clinics, family planning, pre-natal, abortion clinics drug abusers, gay men ~10,000,000 tests How to explain? That as the interval between infection and death increased, the average age of infection decreased by just about the same amount? ABSURD! In any case, there are copious data on age distribution of HIV tests, many summarized in my book. One of the remarkable demographic trends---or rather constants---is that in any group of tested people, the likelihood of testing positive is at a maximum in the 30s or 40s, occasionally even in the 50s. One data set of about 10 milllion tests from CDC sites is reasonably representative of a large range of population groups. 9/17/2018

THE AGE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR INFECTIONS AND FOR DEATHS SUPERPOSE EXTRAORDINARILY WELL (Deaths and infections were reported for different 10-year intervals, so the actual peaks may even be identical.) THERE IS NO SIGN OF A LATENT PERIOD AT ALL, not even the 10-year lag before drugs were introduced. Moreover, the infection data are for 1995-98. HAART should have staved off deaths to 2015 or so, i.e. peak deaths at ages 55-60 or more. Comparing distributions in this manner is an over-simplification. To each “age of infection”, which is really the age at which infection is detected, not first established, there corresponds a distribution of ages of actual first infection. And for each age of first infection, there corresponds not a single age for subsequesntly expected death but a distribution of expected ages of death. But modeling more exactly in this way would not change the expected distance between peaks for infection and for death, it would just greatly broaden the distribution of expected deaths. That in fact both age distributions, infections and deaths, are about equally sharp is actually another piece of evidence that HIV/AIDS theory is wrong. Deaths from “HIV disease” are not caused by “HIV infection”. 9/17/2018

Hard Questions: Where is the “latent period”? Where is the beneficial effect of antiretroviral drugs? Infectious disease that kills preferentially in prime years of adulthood? Infectious diseases are most dangerous to the distinctly old and the distinctly young, not to people in their 30s and 40s. It’s children and seniors who are urged to get annual flu vaccinations. 9/17/2018

9/17/2018

Shift in skewness of death-vs.-age curves The shift in skewness is owing to a change in the groups being tested. Testing HIV-positive is a non-specific immune-system response The ability of the immune system to respond like that is at its peak in prime adult years, ~40 This same variation with age is seen among all tested groups: blood donors, military cohorts, gay men, drug addicts, and more 9/17/2018

However, the rate of testing positive varies according to the average health or fitness of the tested group: highest with people ill or near death, lowest among blood donors. In the early 1980s, most people being tested had AIDS diseases or were in a high-risk group; they were relatively young people. So reported “HIV deaths” missed deaths of older HIV-positive people, because they had never been tested, and “HIV deaths” showed an apparent “shoulder” at younger ages. Increasingly, people of all ages, not necessarily ill, were tested--- in hospital for any reason, pregnant women, healthy gay men--- so the artefactual “shoulder” of deaths at lower ages dissipated. 9/17/2018

Those drugs are highly toxic. Iatrogenic deaths But HIV-positive is interpreted as marking a deadly infection and many HIV-positive people with no symptoms of illness were and are being given antiretroviral drugs. Those drugs are highly toxic. “In the era of combination antiretroviral therapy, several large observational studies have indicated that the risk of several non-AIDS-defining conditions, including cardiovascular diseases, liver-related events, renal disease, and certain non-AIDS malignancies . . . is greater than the risk for AIDS . . . .” (Treatment Guidelines, January 2008, http://AIDSinfo.nih.gov) The rates of death among HIV-positive people have gone up because of additional causes of death-- drug-induced liver, heart, and kidney failure, and cancer; and because the drugs produce death only after a decade or so, a “shoulder” of deaths has grown at older ages. 9/17/2018