HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Proponents of HIV/AIDS theory are on the classical horns of a syllogistic dilemma:
1. Racial disparities as to testing “HIV-positive” are pervasive, constant, and universally acknowledged. It is undeniable that people of recent African ancestry test “HIV-positive” many times more often than others, in all social groups and economic circumstances. Testing “HIV-positive” goes with recent African ancestry as inevitably as does dark-hued skin.
2. Under HIV/AIDS theory, the tendency to become “HIV-positive” is ascribed primarily to types of behavior that are widely disdained.
3. Thereby such disdained behavior is linked inevitably to race.

That conclusion is contrary to what’s nowadays well known about the independence of behavior and genotype, and it is blatantly racist. Point 3., what the syllogism presents as demonstrated, being ignorant as well as racist (but then racism is in any case a sub-category of ignorance) means that at least one of points 1. and 2. is wrong. Which one?

The evidence for 1. is, as already stated, undisputed. Many illustrative sources are cited in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory. Others have been added in many earlier posts (HIV AND SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE: IT JUST ISN’T SO, 28 November; “HIV DISEASE” IS NOT AN ILLNESS, 19 March 2008; REGULAR AS CLOCKWORK: HIV, THE TRULY UNIQUE “INFECTION”, 1 April 2008; HIV: THE VIRUS THAT DISCRIMINATES BY RACE, 11 April 2008; HIV: A RACE-DISCRIMINATING SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED VIRUS!, 16 April 2008; DECONSTRUCTING HIV/AIDS in “SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA” and “THE CARIBBEAN”, 21 April 2008 ). Perhaps the most striking demonstrations that it is biological, physical, race that determines rates of testing “HIV-positive” are the difference between Hispanics on the East and West coasts in the United States, and that in South Africa the “coloreds”, of mixed racial ancestry, test positive at rates intermediate between those seen with blacks and with whites.

Since point 1. is correct, and point 3. is wrong, therefore point 2. must also be wrong.

Indeed, the evidence against point 2. is just as solid as the evidence for point 1.; for sources and discussion, see WHAT “HIV” IS NOT: IT’S NOT SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED, 6 January 2008 and Chapter 4 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory.

What’s so difficult to accept, to comprehend, to explain, is that the conventional wisdom has ignored this evidence for so long and with such passionate determination.

In order not to admit that point 2. — that “HIV” is sexually transmitted — is in error , it is necessary to recast point 3. in a manner that masks its erroneous and racist nature. How to do this?

“The promiscuity, blind sexual trust and intravenous drug use that gave life to this incurable disease is just as prevalent today as when former NBA great Magic Johnson gave HIV/AIDS a recognizable face. Black people in Mississippi make up 70 percent of the new HIV/AIDS cases; black women make up 49 percent. No major study exists to tell us why, so we’re left with theories that have no scientific foundation” (Ronnie Agnew, “HIV’s new target: Black women”, Clarion-Ledger [Jackson, MS], 23 April 2006).

Political correctness offers a working model for obfuscating the matter: Accept that undesirable behavior is linked to race, but assert that this is only because race has meant discrimination and its after-effects of deprivation, poverty, lack of health care, etc. In other words, “their” behavior is admittedly despicable, but it’s not really their fault.

Thus, as Potterat pointed out recently, there has been “evidence and speculation that epidemic trajectories are shaped by demographic, social, economic and network configurations” (“Blind spots in the epidemiology of HIV in black Americans”, Int J STD & AIDS 19 [2008] 1-3).

The currently fashionable parlance among HIV/AIDS experts is “multiple concurrent relationships”. That abstract mouthful fails to reveal the magnitude of sexual activity required to explain the spread of HIV: 20-40% of the population must be having sex with several people during the same short period of time and all the people involved must be changing partners every weeks (B***S*** about HIV from ACADEME via THE PRESS, 4 March 2008). A colloquial description of such behavior allegedly found among Africans and African Americans might be, “Those macacas screw around in ways that us civilized folks don’t”.

(For the expression “macaca” I am indebted to Republican Senator and former Governor of Virginia, George Allen, whose use of it on a public occasion is widely thought to have spelled the demise of his campaign for the presidential nomination of his party.)

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

In any case, no one attempts to deny the statistical facts. Under HIV/AIDS theory, those facts must be interpreted in racist fashion, relying on racist stereotypes as to sexual behavior. The mainstream attempt to hide that inescapable fact, to obfuscate it, harnesses nice-sounding, politically correct, words like “cultural differences” and references to “minorities” in relation to “poverty”, “discrimination”, lack of access to health case, and the like. What that amounts to is admitting that “they”, the macacas, do behave that way, but it isn’t really their individual or collective fault. Here are some actual examples of this rhetoric:

“The marked racial and ethnic differences in HIV prevalence, even among persons treated in the same clinic, suggests that both behavioral norms and complex social mixing patterns within racial and ethnic groups are important determinants of HIV transmission risk” (emphasis added; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV/AIDS surveillance report for 1992, p. 37).
Translating from jargon: “behavioral norms” = regarded as acceptable behavior; “complex social mixing patterns” = those who behave improperly are not sexually segregated from others “within racial and ethnic groups”.

Nor has the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention changed its belief since then, as they informed me in 2005: “The ‘characteristic differentiation by race’ that you note is compatible with a behavioral explanation” (emphasis in original, Shari Steinberg [Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention, CDC], letter to Henry Bauer, 19 May 2005).

“The phenomenon of men on the down low has gained much attention in recent years; however, there are no data to confirm or refute publicized accounts of HIV risk behavior associated with these men. What is clear is that women, men, and children of minority races and ethnicities are disproportionately affected by HIV and AIDS … .
What steps is CDC taking to address the down low?
CDC and its many research partners have several projects in the field that are exploring the HIV-related sexual risks of men, including men who use the term down low to refer to themselves. The results of these studies will be published in medical journals and circulated through press releases in the next few years as each study is concluded and the data analyzed. CDC has also funded several projects that provide HIV education, counseling, and testing in minority racial and ethnic communities. CDC’s research and on-the-ground HIV prevention efforts will continue as more information about the demographics and HIV risk behaviors of men who do and men who do not identify with the down low becomes available” (emphasis added; unchanged since at least March 2006, accessed 11 May 2008).

Note the weasel-word “minority” used here, as so often in similar contexts. It doesn’t mean minority, it’s a euphemism for “black”. Asian-Americans are less affected by “HIV” than are whites, and at 4.5% of the population they surely qualify as a “minority”, certainly by comparison with about 13% African Americans. Perhaps the smallest recognized minority group in the United States is comprised of Native Americans, who are affected by “HIV” almost as little as are white Americans. The persistent usage of “minority” is intended to mask the fact that it is blacks who are so disproportionately affected, and simultaneously to suggest — in condescending and demeaning terms — that it isn’t their fault, because it’s so well known that “minorities” are devastatingly discriminated against.

It’s hard to believe that this usage of “minority” is other than deliberate. Its use implies quite clearly that the user accepts that “black” is the determining factor. The only way to explain that under HIV/AIDS theory is by differences in sexual behavior. But one mustn’t say that, even though it is evidently believed by those who resort to these euphemisms. In other words, these statements are made by people who harbor stereotypically racist beliefs — albeit they would likely be horrified if made aware of that subconscious or suppressed belief.