What if you learned that the “HIV test” doesn’t test for a virus? There is a substantial amount of data from years of HIV testing that reveal HIV and AIDS are not correlated and that HIV tests are not diagnosing an infectious agent. Instead, these tests are non-specific and do correlate to levels of physiological stress. This is the conclusion of the book The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, by Henry Bauer.
How does the author come to such conclusions?:
(Definitions: HIV is the supposed infectious agent that is presumed to cause the disease AIDS. The term “prevalence of HIV” should be read as “the prevalence of positive HIV tests” without the presumption that HIV is related to an infectious agent.)
- Prevalence of HIV in the US remains constant at around one million people while AIDS cases vary greatly, peaking in the early 1980’s and decreasing from there.
- The Male to Female ratio of HIV-positives is around 2 and consistently so, while the Male to Female ratio of AIDS cases was as high as 18 in the early days of AIDS.
- The ratio of HIV-positivity varies significantly between different racial groups. In order from highest to lowest: Blacks, Hispanics, Whites and then Asians.
- HIV positivity peaks in middle age.
- The prevalence of HIV is geography dependent, being especially prevalent in the Atlantic and Southeast regions of the US.
- Subgroups associated with good health have lower prevalence of HIV than groups associated with poor health.
If one were to take the conventional view that HIV tests are measuring an infectious agent it is hard to explain why women, never considered to be greatly impacted by AIDS, can have a positivity rate so close to that of men. Similarly, it is hard to explain why there is a racial or geographic factor with HIV positivity. Also, one might expect younger people, associated with more promiscuity, to have higher positivity rates than the middle aged, who actually have the highest positivity rates.
These data suggest that a positive HIV test does not indicate anything passed on from person to person. “It is now clear that the presumption of sexual transmission was mistaken,” Bauer says in summary.
So, then, what is it that HIV tests are testing for, if not a sexually transmitted agent? The author’s hypothesis is that the tests are measuring physiological stress – as from a fever, an environmental challenge, an allergic reaction, etc. While this is only a hypothesis, the important thing is clear: HIV and AIDS are not correlated!
(Actually, the mainstream already is aware of this. AIDS patients who are HIV-negative don’t fit their paradigm. They explain this away with some fancy footwork, diagnosing such patients with idiopathic CD4-T-cell lymphopenia, as though that explains away the problem.)
Backing up the author’s thesis is a table showing that, while military personnel have a very low prevalence of HIV, those tested in TB clinics and psychiatric hospitals have a higher prevalence of HIV.
How is it that scientists could be so wrong for so long? The author addresses this. “If one has a sense of how Enron or a WorldCom can fail, or how several governments can have been misled about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then one can equally understand how the Food and Drug Administration might approve a drug that turns out to have lethal side effects or how the Centers for Disease Control could enshrine as a contagious disease an illness that turns out to be not contagious,” writes Bauer.
Actually, the assumption that scientists have gotten HIV and AIDS wrong for a long time is not exactly correct. Dissidents abound, they just don’t get much press. The Perth Group1 has been saying things much like Bauer has and the signatories to the online Rethinking AIDS2 petition includes over 1,000 people with advanced degrees.
Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate inventor of PCR, tells the story about his hunt for the scientific paper that proves that HIV causes AIDS. Colleagues all assured him that it existed and they would send it to him, but, they never did. He searched online with no success. At conferences he would approach those he thought could surely pinpoint the paper that establishes HIV as the cause of AIDS. “After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could cite the reference,” Mullis wrote in the introduction to Peter Duesberg’s book Inventing the AIDS Virus3. Not even Luc Montagnier who “discovered” HIV could cite a paper. Given what we now know about HIV and AIDS, Mullis’s story is not a big surprise.
Why should we care about HIV and AIDS four decades later? People continue to be diagnosed as HIV-positive and, even in the absence of symptoms, are often recommended a treatment regimen based on the presumption of a deadly infection. Worse still, these treatments cause serious side effects, even death, and the symptoms are indistinguishable from AIDS!
But, perhaps even more important, the reliance upon a non-specific test has been repeated once again in the Covid era. The Covid test is also non-specific and is merely presumed to be related to an infectious agent, a virus. The scientists behind the Covid test clearly state in their published paper that they had no sample of the supposed new virus when they developed the test.4 Without a sample of the new virus, they had no way to validate their test! So, the Covid test is not related to a specific infectious agent, just as is the case with the HIV “test.”
Sources:
- The Perth Group
- THE AIDS INDUSTRY AND MEDIA WANT YOU TO THINK THERE ARE ONLY A HANDFUL OF SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THE HIV–AIDS HYPOTHESIS.
- Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry
- Did Faulty Science Lead to Lockdowns? Examining the Drosten Paper
- Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent
(This paper was retracted by the publisher. Depending on your point of view you may consider this to be evidence that the paper is right on target or has been rejected for legitimate scientific reasons. When reading the publisher’s explanation the former explanation appears to be more likely. In other words, it appears that the paper is being censored.)
This site has pointed out the failings of HIV/AIDS theory in other articles: