HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

About

HENRY BAUER’S HIV/AIDS SKEPTIC SITE

Official reports and peer-reviewed publications afford many reasons for skepticism about the prevailing dogma that HIV causes AIDS: Why have many HIV-positive people remained healthy, without treatment, for upwards of 2 decades? Why have more than 20 years of effort seen no progress toward a vaccine against HIV? Why, so often, do drug treatments that seem to destroy virus (decrease “viral load”) and to strengthen the immune system (increase CD4-cell counts) fail to improve the patients’ health? Why do mothers transmit HIV to their babies through breastfeeding less efficiently when breastfeeding is exclusive than when it is supplemented by formula? How can Africa’s population have been increasing so much for twenty years — about 3% per year — when it is supposedly in the grip of a deadly epidemic of AIDS during which few people have been receiving treatment?

The purpose of this blog is to examine such issues and to show that what is puzzling for people who believe that HIV causes AIDS is readily explainable under alternative views soundly based on published research studies.

Data from HIV testing show that what those tests detect is not an infectious agent: see my book (cover shown in the left sidebar), The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory (McFarland 2007). The book further shows that numbers of positive HIV-tests do not correlate with numbers of reported cases of AIDS, so that “HIV” (whatever HIV tests detect) cannot be the cause of AIDS.
Part II of the book explains how medical science can go wrong about such matters; and Part III describes how things did in fact go wrong about HIV and AIDS.
Reviews of the book are posted at www.failingsofhivaidstheory.homestead.com/Reviews.html.

For information about the other books I’ve published in science studies or chemistry or about academic administration, click “Bauer’s Books” on the menu bar.

For more about the author, see his homepage and curriculum vitae. If you want to correspond via my e-mail address there, please understand that I can only respond if the e-mail address you give is a valid one. For example, e-mails cannot be delivered to “anonymous@anonymous.com”.

You should be able to subscribe to RSS Feeds either under “Meta” or under “Subscribe” in the right-hand sidebar.

77 Responses to “About”

  1. Leo Varela said

    Congratulations!
    Go ahead!
    Leo

  2. Jeff Sullivan said

    Henry,

    I was just tipped off to your blog by a poster on msn’s AIDSTheMythExposed message board.

    Thanks, I will probably read your commentary each day.

    Jeff Sullivan, MSW

  3. Glenn said

    Hello,

    I am interested in signing up to receive updates and to be able to post comments – please add me to your RSS / email list.

    I am a 5.5 year “survivor” of receiving the “news” “HIV POS” and am PERFECTLY HEALTHY and Med-free…

    Thanks for your blog!

    Glenn

  4. hhbauer said

    Glenn:

    I’m new at this and just learning the ropes.

    You can comment on any of the posts by clicking “Comment” and then filling out the registration details, after which you should be able to sign in whenever you want to comment, using your chosen ID and password.

    Your query made me look into “RSS feeds” for the first time. I found that I could subscribe to feeds by using Google Reader. The Google page has “more” on the top line at the right, clicking that gives a list including Reader. Click on that and a page comes up with a left sidebar that includes “Subscription”. Click on that and search for “hivskeptic”. That should bring up my blog. After that, you should be able to see new items whenever you open Google Reader. You may need to create a Google account, but it’s free–and very useful, I’ve been using Google Alerts for some time to keep up with news on several topics.

    I do appreciate your interest, and the information you shared, and I’m grateful to you for making me finally start to learn about RSS feeds!

  5. Evelcyclops said

    I was just wondering where I can find your “20 questions” page, Iwould like to see the comments.

    Are any of the dissidents actively researching the causative agents of AIDS?

  6. hhbauer said

    Evelcyclops:

    I haven’t yet put together an “FAQ” page, I agree that it would be useful.

    I think the best explanation for what caused the original 1980s AIDS is:

    Kaposi’s sarcoma caused by poppers, see John Lauritsen’s “Death Rush”: http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/POPPERS.HTM

    PCP pneumonia and candidiasis were brought about by wholesale destruction of the intestinal microflora that protect us from fungal infections, see Tony Lance’s hypothesis of “intestinal dysbiosis”, see WHAT REALLY CAUSED AIDS: SLICING THROUGH THE GORDIAN KNOT, 20 February 2008, http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/what-really-caused-aids-slicing-through-the-gordian-knot/

  7. Evelcyclops said

    “PCP pneumonia and candidiasis were brought about ”

    In this case, a simple test by using a synbiotic supplemented diet under controlled conditions could help to either falsify or ‘prove’ the hypothesis.

    What can be said about the effect of HAART therapy on recovery of T cells in infected individuals? These drugs are directed at particular proteins in the HIV virus which restrict the ability to reproduce and so if there is discord wether HIV exists/has no effect, then why do these figures stack up? (Hans J. J. van der Vliet et al. The Journal of Immunology, 2006, 177: 5775-5778 )

    As for Kaposi’s sarcoma as a result of poppers, have you any references to any peer reviewed studies? And what is your explanation for the widespread KS rates amongst HIV+ individuals in Africa?

    The average life expectancy in countries such as botswana and south africa decreased rapidly after 1983/4 and have continued to decrease ever since. If AIDS in africa is caused by poor sanitation and malnutrition, then why was this suddenly so prevalent so suddenly, in what can be described as consistent livig conditions?

  8. hhbauer said

    Re synbiotic diet, see Tony Lance’s “Gay-related intestinal dysbiosis” in WHAT REALLY CAUSED AIDS: SLICING THROUGH THE GORDIAN KNOT, 20 February 2008,

    http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/what-really-caused-aids-slicing-through-the-gordian-knot/

    The literature on HAART is vast and I can’t summarize it for you.

    Re KS, read “Death Rush”, as I suggested. Haverkos published peer-reviewed articles and reports on nitrites as likely cause of KS in gay men in USA. KS in Africa is a different matter, and there’s no evidence that it has increased in the “AIDS” era.

    The population in Africa, including Botswana and South Africa, has increased steadily during the “AIDS” era (see CIA Fact Book, for example). Please cite reliable sources for your allegation re reduced life expectancy.

  9. Evelcyclops said

    RE KS in africa, i have just done a small search on scopus, and ive found a few artivles that refute your claim about a lack of evidence regarding KS in africa:

    Sitas F, Incidence of histologically diagnosed cancer in South Africa, 1993–1995. National Cancer Registry of South Africa. (1998 )

    This article describes a 3 fold increase in an already prevalent disease from 1988-1996 and suggests that this figure is still rising.

    F Sitas. Kaposi’s Sarcoma in South Africa. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, No. 28, 1-4, 2000

    References a 20 fold increase in KS in uganda and zimbabwe in the past 10-15 years.

    If we can already assume these diseases were already endemic and and infection rates of KSHV were stable, then what can explain the sudden rise in infection rate other than AIDS caused by HIV?

    Apologies for lack of reference regarding the life expectancy, the data was sourced from the 2005 Economic Report of the (US) President which logged annual rates of life expectancy from 1958 – 2003… roughly speaking it shows a 20% decrase in life expectancy for botswana, zimbabwe, and South Africa and kenya with slightly lower, but still significant decreases, roughly 15-17% decreases.

    A good reference on this subjest is; “The impact of AIDS on adult mortality: Evidence from national and regional statistics. Blacker, J. 2004 AIDS 18 (SUPPL. 2), pp. S19-S26

    As for the CIA factbook, i have heard a similar argument from another dissident, and to be honest, i need a reference for this before i can press the issue, as i have seen articles reffering to slowing population growth. However it must be said, that HIV infection does not prevent procreation sadly, and it may be a valid argument to suggest that once a victim has been diagnosed, knowing that they will have a vastly reduced life expectancy, they may wish to forfill their maternal duties (if you will). The stigma of condom use and poor education and rampant procreation that is a crude, but signifacant factor in this equation although i believe the population growth is decreasing.

    I cite: AIDS and population growth in sub-Saharan Africa: Assessing the sensitivity of projections. Heuveline, P. Population Research and Policy Review 16 (6), pp. 531-560 which i think adresses your point quite well, with acceptance that population growth is indeed remaining positive with some good explainations.

    also, the conclusion of; AIDS, population growth shape sub-Saharan Africa’s future. 1998 Population today 26 (1), pp. 1-2 is pretty good…

    I didnt quite mean for this to be so long, but you know how it is, once you get researching…

  10. hhbauer said

    Evelcyclops:

    “RE KS in africa, i have just done a small search on scopus, and ive found a few artivles that refute your claim about a lack of evidence regarding KS in africa:”

    I didn’t say lack of evidence, I said it’s an entirely different matter

    Please do look at CIA Fact Book and other sources. How can an increase in population be squared with decreased life expectancy?

    With apologies, I now discontinue these exchanges. I simply don’t have the time, I’m absolutely swamped in trying to keep up with the issues that I regard as central, and the ones you raise are—in my opinion—not. There are innumerable questions that are simply not answerable because the research has not been done or reported, since everything is approached with the HIV = AIDS viewpoint.

    But the evidence is absolutely clear that what HIV tests detect is not infectious, see Part I of my book. Chapter 9, moreover, shows clearly that “HIV” and “AIDS” numbers are not correlated. All the data are from official reports and peer-reviewed articles.
    Most recently I saw that the age distribution of “HIV Disease” deaths has remained unchanged from 1987 through 2004, peak age of death being around 40: therefore, no increase in life expectancy of HIV+ people as a result of antiretroviral treatment including HAART; and the age distribution for testing HIV+ superposes on the age distribution of HIV+ deaths, thus there is no sign of the latent period that is a central holding of HIV/AIDS theory: see “HIV DISEASE” IS NOT AN ILLNESS, 19 March 2008

    http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/“hiv-disease”-is-not-an-illness/

    and http://failingsofhivaidstheory.homestead.com/SSE2008.ppt

    The points you have been raising are along the line, “But if HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, how do you explain….”
    As I said above, there are innumerable such questions that one could ask and that are not answerable—except speculatively—because the data needed to be sure about them have not been gathered or published. They will no doubt be answered, if need be, once it is generally accepted that something not infectious, and not correlated with “AIDS”, cannot be the cause of AIDS.

  11. MacDonald said

    Evelcyclops,

    The aetiology of KS is an interesting topic. Although it may not be central to Prof. Bauer’s general line of argument, it is certainly pertinent. but I think we would all be more inclined to concern ourselves with your questions if you could be persuaded to stick to one topic at a time and put a little more work and thought into it than simply Googling and throwing bits and pieces at us in the form described by Prof. Bauer above:

    “But if HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, how do you explain…?”

    As you will know, it’s A LOT less work asking such a quesion than answering it, so let’s restrict ourselves a bit, shall we? The general familiarity with the HIV/AIDS topic demonstrated in your mails suggests that you are quite capable of this.

    But let me give you an example of what I mean. You write

    “This article describes a 3 fold increase in an already prevalent disease from 1988-1996 and suggests that this figure is still rising.

    F Sitas. Kaposi’s Sarcoma in South Africa. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, No. 28, 1-4, 2000

    References a 20 fold increase in KS in uganda and zimbabwe in the past 10-15 years.

    If we can already assume these diseases were already endemic and and infection rates of KSHV were stable, then what can explain the sudden rise in infection rate other than AIDS caused by HIV?”

    Evelcyclops, here is what the CDC says about KS, KSHV and HIV:

    “The etiology of KS is complex, but infection with human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8 ) appears to be the primary and necessary event for development of the tumor (6). The sequence of the HHV-8 genome suggests several ways the virus might promote uncontrolled cellular proliferation. The virus encodes for several genes, incorporated from its human host, that are homologous to human oncoproteins, including a cyclin that regulates the G1-to-S phase of the cell cycle, and a Bcl-2 like protein that prevents apoptosis (6). In addition, HHV-8 encodes for functional chemokines that may promote angiogenesis and inhibit immune type I helper-T-cell responses. Early in the development of a KS lesion, large numbers of inflammatory cells are recruited to the site, and their production of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 and TNF-alpha are thought to promote the angioproliferative inflammation that characterizes the disease.
    However, HHV-8 infection alone is not sufficient for the development of KS, and epidemiologic evidence supports the contribution of other environmental, hormonal, and genetic cofactors in the pathogenesis of the condition. For instance, co-infection with HIV dramatically increases the risk for development of KS, as does the immunosuppressive therapy required by organ transplant patients. Because KS is more prevalent in men than women, sex hormones have also been postulated to act as cofactors in the pathogenesis of the disease”

    In other words, nobody is really sure about anything other than there appears to be certain correlations. Viruses are mentioned as cofactors, so is the environment, hormones, genes. . . It’s all in the mix. Now I have a question for you: Which of these many cofactors would explain that KS incidence has risen only three-fold in South Africa, the country supposedly hardest hit by HIV/AIDS, while it has risen twenty-fold in Uganda and Zimbabwe?

    Once you have answered this and similar questions, from the inexhaustible store of paradoxes, inconsistensies and discrepancies generated by the HIV/AIDS explain-all, maybe we can fruitfully return to your question concerning which factors other than HIV could explain the supposedly increased incidence of KS in Africa.

  12. Evelcyclops said

    To MacDonald;

    The reason i ask what if not HIV, is because it is the mainstream view, im sorry, but i happen to hold the belief that HIV causes AIDS.

    How do you mean viruses are mentioned as co-factors? Do you mean what are the co-factors to the infections?

    As for why the discrepancy in rates, first of all, it is arguable to say RSA has been the hardest hit, certainly one of the hardest, but it may be down to several key issue. Quality of data handling and correct diagnosis. I accept that if there was a significant enough discrepancy in the figures it may reduce the efficacy of the argument.

    It could also be that HHV8 infections were more prevalent in RSA to start with, and less common in in the other countries although im sure there is plenty of data in the literature to back up or falsify. I’d try to find it, but im away from my network computer at the minute, and i only have a basic access to journals, mostly on fungus :(

  13. MacDonald said

    Nobody can prevent you from arguing any view you choose — yet. The AIDS-establishment is trying very hard, so maybe some day. . .
    But in the meantime you don’t have to aspire to their standard of argument.

    The absolutely first thing you must do is take care at all times to distinguish clearly between infection and disease/clinical symptom. HIV is ranked as a co-factor not in infection but in the clinical manifestation of KS. Not long ago, it was thought that HIV was a primary, possibly sufficient, cause of KS. That view has reluctantly been abandoned because KS tumors didn’t yield any traces of the HIV molecular signature despite Roman efforts by Gallo and others to tease it out.

    But since the First Cause of all things MUST be a virus, they kept hunting and found that KS tumors reliably express at least fragments of the HHV-8 molecular signature. Post hoc(us pocus), there’s surely the cause of KS! Unfortunately, it has also proved impossible to establish HHV-8 as a sufficent cause of KS, so, just as with HIV, everything becomes a co-factor to preserve the core myth of Viral Causation.

    Regardless of whether the scientists are on the right track or not — who can tell in each case? — this is the inevitable pattern the narrative will follow each and every time. But with the advent of the lenti-viruses and immune-deficiency viruses, something was added: viruses are now each other’s co-factors. So for example herpes facilitates HIV, and HIV facilitates herpes. HIV even facilitates itself; its mere presence creates the conditions that facilitate its presence. It is a perfect viral Ouroboros myth, and as with all myths, it holds a core of truth clothed in multiple layers of superstition.

  14. CathyVM said

    I know an old lady who swallowed a lie
    I don’t know why she swallowed the lie
    Perhaps she’ll die

    I know an old lady who swallowed a germ
    That managed to hide out a very long term
    She swallowed the germ to match the lie
    But I don’t know why she swallowed the lie
    Perhaps she’ll die

    I know an old lady who swallowed a pill
    What a thrill to swallow a pill
    She swallowed the pill to kill the germ
    That managed to hide out a very long term
    She swallowed the germ to match the lie
    But I don’t know why she swallowed the lie
    Perhaps she’ll die

    I know an old lady who swallowed more pills
    Made her ill. To swallow more pills.
    She swallowed the pills to aid the pill
    She swallowed the pill to kill the germ
    That managed to hide out a very long term
    She swallowed the germ to match the lie
    But I don’t know why she swallowed that lie
    Perhaps she’ll die

    I know an old lady who swallowed ad hoc
    What a crock to swallow ad hoc!
    She swallowed ad hoc to match the pills
    She swallowed the pills to aid the pill
    She swallowed the pill to kill the germ
    That managed to hide out a very long term
    She swallowed the germ to match the lie
    But I don’t know why she swallowed that lie
    She’s going to die

    I know an old lady who dismissed the horse(sh*t)
    She’s alive and well of course!

  15. Chetan Adiverekar said

    Thank you for the great info. on your site. I have been detected positive 2 weeks back and have been trying to read for some hope to live as +ve. God Bless you for all your efforts and good work.

    • PLEASE-DELETE-COMMENT said

      Dr. Henry Bauer, kindly delete the above comment#15 immediately as it is spam – someone else has posted a comment in my name ! Thank you.

    • PLEASE-DELETE-COMMENT said

      Dr. Henry Bauer . . .

      • Henry Bauer said

        PLEASE-DELETE-COMMENT:
        The e-address you gave isn’t correct, and I can’t take action on your request unless I can be assured that you who you say you are.

  16. Oslo, january, 2009

    Dear Sir/Madame,

    I send you/your organization this e-mail as a request for support.

    A few weeks ago we produced a manifesto against criminalization of hiv in
    Norway. You may also visit out website: http://hivmanifest.blogg.no/ english
    version http://hiv-manifesto-norway.blog.com/4464373/

    YOUR SUPPORT WILL INDEED BENEFIT OUR CAUSE!

    Leaders and decision makers, domestically and internationally, are hereby
    urged to support the principles documented in this manifesto.
    Our main goal is to convince the Norwegian authorities to abolish § 155. In
    this way, Norway will comply with recommendations, ethical standards and
    international human rights set forth by UN.

    Best regards,

    Jan Petter Eide
    HIV MANIFESTO NORWAY

  17. Maureen said

    Dear Sir,
    I have just come across your site and look forward to checking in regularly. Congratulations!
    Best wishes
    Maureen

    • Henry Bauer said

      Maureen:

      Nice to hear from Down Under. I grew up and lived in Picton (3 years) and Sydney (30 years).

  18. Photonaut said

    Dear Dr Bauer

    I hope you are well.

    FYI: http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/05/conspiracies-and-martha-mitchell-effect.html

    Regards,

    Jason

    • Henry Bauer said

      Photonaut:

      Thanks, yes, well and busy working on a book MS.

      Nice link re the “Martha Mitchell effect”. Did you hav any particular psychologist in mind who could benefit from this understanding?

  19. Mike Williams said

    Dear Dr Bauer

    I bought your book on AIDS and thought it was great.
    I recently found reference to a paper rejected by “Medical Hypotheses” which had your name as a co-author and have looked at a few aids supporter web sites getting quite offensive and sarcastic about this.
    Can you please expand on what your take on that rejection.
    This was one of the sites.

    http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/2009/09/peer-reviewing-peter-duesberg.html

    You have a great web site by the way.!!

    Mike

    • Henry Bauer said

      Mike Williams:

      The facts are not all in yet, and when they are we — Duesberg, Ruggiero, Rethinking AIDS — will be making public a full account, which will inevitably be very long. For the moment:
      The paper was not rejected, it was accepted, as had been earlier an entirely independent paper by Ruggiero et al. that also points to weaknesses in HIV/AIDS claims.
      A cabal of those who want to censor all dissenting viewpoints persuaded Elsevier to withdraw those two from the articles already posted as “in press”. The National Library of Medicine has also been urged to stop abstracting the journal MEDICAL HYPOTHESES.

      Elsevier behaved outrageously by not notifying the authors of the articles before taking them down from the website: we received their belated notification days after the Kalichman blog and other Internet comments had announced the withdrawal. So far, we have been told only that there is a review ongoing about the temporary withdrawal. We cannot obviously write a full account until all to-and-fro is over and we know whether the withdrawal is being made permanent and whether the National Library of Medicine will continue to abstract the journal MEDICAL HYPOTHESES. Furthermore, Elsevier has not shared with us the substantive points at issue, nor who the protesters are. So far we have learned that one of them was Barre-Sinoussi, who shared the Nobel Prize for discovering HIV, and we know that the letter to the National Library of Medicine was signed chiefly by people connected with AIDStruth.org. Have a look at that website for a taste of the level of discourse and gutter language that those people indulge in, although I suppose you’ve already experienced that on the blogs you mention.

      Have a look at the corrected proofs of the temporarily withdrawn articles. The only common factor is that they document points that contradict claims by supporters of HIV/AIDS theory: ruggieromedhyp09.pdf; duesbergmedhypothesessa.pdf.

      What’s abundantly clear, and has been for a long time, is that the fanatical defenders of HIV/AIDS theory cannot answer the questions put to them: cite the scientific publications that prove HIV to be the cause of AIDS; propose a mechanism by which HIV is supposed to kill CD4 T-cells; explain why “viral load” does not correlate with CD4 levels and why neither correlates with clinical progression; and many more, some of them set out in my book, others on my blog. For a brief account, see my article “Questioning HIV/AIDS: Morally Reprehensible or Scientifically Warranted?”, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 12 (#4, Winter 2007) 116-120.

  20. Bryan Martin said

    Dr. Bauer I just wanted to say thanks. Quite simply thanks. Thanks for your hard work and thanks for making your work available. Thanks.

  21. Jason said

    Dr Bauer

    I presume you’re already fully aware of this, but in case you’re not, here are some very mainstream links you may find interesting:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574564291187747578.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-warming-religion-modern-day.html

    The parallels with HIV are remarkable.

    Jason

  22. Jason said

    Dr Bauer

    I apologize, I should’ve checked your recent posts first.

    Imagine a similar “hack” of Moore, Fauci etc., etc., were to come to light!

    Your article “21st Century Science” was an intellectually sealing document for me; interestingly, the parallels apply to any complex system involving vested interests, even economics. Just look how the American public was knowingly misled about their economy, to the disastrous detriment of their economic “health” — & those responsible are still in charge!

    The one WSJ article I sent you the link puts it aptly & universally:

    “Supply, as we know, creates its own demand… Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.

    “None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what’s known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science… Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral… This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.”

    Keep well,

    Jason

    • Henry Bauer said

      Jason: Absolutely no apology called for. There’s far too much to read and to remember. And I agree totally, it’s not just in science. Society has come to assume not only that “the experts” are always right, but even that there are experts on everything including every aspect of human behavior. Well-informed common sense is becoming a better guide than attedning to experts.

  23. Photonaut said

    Dr Bauer

    FYI – sorry if you’ve already seen this, you seem to be very adept at internet data-mining your chosen areas of interest. The paper referred to here is, however, quite remarkable, if you haven’t seen this, it’s worth a look.

    http://digg.com/d31BzpG

    Keep well,

    Jason

    • Henry Bauer said

      Photonaut-Jason: Many thanks, I was totally unaware of this. I had steered clear of the crazy postmodernists in science studies as much as I could while I was still active in the science-studies community, and hadn’t kept up with them since then. It’s good — I mean important! — to know that their viewpoint seems to have been adopted consciously in the East Anglian Climate “Research” groups.

  24. Jon von Briesen said

    Dear Prof. Bauer,

    I imagine you have an alerting service; but, just in case, 14 Dec., BBC website carries a story on another failed vaginal microbicide gel (PRO 2000) trial in Africa. No mention of JP Moore.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8408108.stm

    Best wishes,

    Jon v. Briesen

  25. “The etiology of KS is complex, but infection with human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8 ) appears to be the primary and necessary event for development of the tumor (6). The sequence of the HHV-8 genome suggests several ways the virus might promote uncontrolled cellular proliferation. The virus encodes for several genes, incorporated from its human host, that are homologous to human oncoproteins, including a cyclin that regulates the G1-to-S phase of the cell cycle, and a Bcl-2 like protein that prevents apoptosis (6). In addition, HHV-8 encodes for functional chemokines that may promote angiogenesis and inhibit immune type I helper-T-cell responses. Early in the development of a KS lesion, large numbers of inflammatory cells are recruited to the site, and their production of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 and TNF-alpha are thought to promote the angioproliferative inflammation that characterizes the disease. However, HHV-8 infection alone is not sufficient for the development of KS, and epidemiologic evidence supports the contribution of other environmental, hormonal, and genetic cofactors in the pathogenesis of the condition. For instance, co-infection with HIV dramatically increases the risk for development of KS, as does the immunosuppressive therapy required by organ-transplant patients. Because KS is more prevalent in men than women, sex hormones have also been postulated to act as cofactors in the pathogenesis of the disease”
    +1

    • Henry Bauer said

      Aldis Alexander:
      Could you give the source of the quotation, and what reference 6 in it is?
      Note that just about any ailment is likely to be stimulated by immunosuppressive therapy. As to “co-infection with HIV”, the actual situation is that “HIV” tests don’t detect a human immunodeficiency virus, they react positive in a large range of conditions, many of them pathological; therefore the prognosis in any ailment is likely to be worse for “HIV+” patients.

  26. Shritosh Acharya said

    Thank you for the information on your website. I am from Pune, India and a 1.5 year survivor of receiving the news HIV +ve but I am perfectly healthy and Medicine-free… keep up the good work

  27. Photonaut said

    Dr Bauer

    Kartik Athreya, senior economist for the Richmond Fed, has written a paper condemning economic bloggers as chronically stupid and a threat to public order.

    Matters of economic policy should be reserved to a priesthood with the correct post-doctoral credentials, which would of course have excluded David Hume, Adam Smith, and arguably John Maynard Keynes (a mathematics graduate, with a tripos foray in moral sciences).

    “Writers who have not taken a year of PhD coursework in a decent economics department (and passed their PhD qualifying exams), cannot meaningfully advance the discussion on economic policy” she says…

    “Science = money = politics”…

  28. Photonaut said

    There’s more!

    “The response of the untrained to the crisis has been startling. The real issue is that there is an extremely low likelihood that the speculations of the untrained, on a topic almost pathologically riddled by dynamic considerations and feedback effects, will offer anything new. Moreover, there is a substantial likelihood that it will instead offer something incoherent or misleading.”

    You couldn’t make it up, could you?

    • Henry Bauer said

      Photonaut:
      Specialists get so caught up in their intricate details as to lose perspective, so that “war becomes too imporant to be left to the generals” and it becomes necessary to apply some common sense.
      But: “common sense” incorporates the most reliable info from the various specialties…
      So, as usual, one has to consider every specific case on its own merits: how important IN THIS CASE is the specialist detailed “knowledge” by comparison to a wider perspective that also considers context and implications?
      The specialists are typically at their worst when considering risks. They tend to regard small risks as eminently worth taking, no matter how disastrous the possible consequences might be.

  29. Photonaut said

    Dr Bauer

    Maybe you have seen this, if not, FYI:

    http://snoutworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/aids-denialism-at-italian-journal-of.html

    Photonaut

    • Henry Bauer said

      Photonaut:
      Thanks … but NO thanks. I have long ago given up looking at anything from Snout (under any of his pseudonyms, like Fulano de Tal) or DeShong. He has no credentials at all to discuss the things he talks about, yet feels free to denigrate a long-established, peer-reviewed Italian journal, and highly competent, even distinguished scientists and scholars. If anyone prefers to take his opinion rather than mine, I think that shows rather poor judgement in view of the curriculum vitae posted on my website and the anonymity and missing C.V. of Snout/deTal/…

  30. Photonaut said

    Dr Bauer

    I agree, he drips venom, but I must say, types like him disconcert me. Most “HIV” believers are just dupes who’ve had the usual mantras drummed into their head, & zombie-like repeat them. But how does one account for people like these? He is, whatever his lack of intellectual integrity & his intentions, well informed — is he bluffing? Does he hope casual browsers will come across his vitriol, & take it as effective rebuttal, without looking more closely?

    You speak of credentials — I have zero credentials, & have had to come, ultimately to rely on my, for want of a better word, heuristics: my innate, instinctive, intuitive ability to sift reasons from rubbish. That’s why I subscribe to your blog, because I have never come across one phrase that turned my alarm bells on, rather, every sentence is consistent. I find it contradictory that you cite credentials, because doesn’t that ultimately lead back to the arguments of Gallo & Fauci & Moore & the other popes & priests of mandarins of Aids research – they’re the most “qualified”, they have the highest “credentials”, so “trust me, I’m a doctor”…

    Snout upsets me, because he represents the “worst” that “are full of passionate intensity”. What is the profile of such a person? He can’t merely be a paid minion, a hack — there’s too much force behind the invective, & he is, again for all his dishonesty, too knowledgeable.

    If it’s any consolation, his frustration is ill-disguised, because at the end of his rant, straight after calling you a “notorious loon”, he closes with “The question is, why did they deliberately publish what they knew, or should have known, was nothing more than the kind of pseudo-scholarship that belongs on crank websites like whale.to, and not in a scientific journal: Why did they embarrass themselves in this way?” Indeed, why?

    Maybe because, even tho Italy, like the rest of the world, went in hook, line & sinker for “HIV”, the Aids Gestapo doesn’t exist there — it’s so marginal as a field & so abesnt as a malady in the Italian population, there’s simply no central clique of vicious incumbent “professors of HIV” who have, in protection of their “turf” made it their life’s mission to fight the truth with whatever means possible.

    To end, my two questions are, who or what are Snout & his ilk, & where does your argument based on credentials lead?

    All the best to you.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Photonaut:
      I could speculate about motives, but only in generalities, like frustrated career-wise.

      Re credentials, I agree they are not the way to decide; after all “peer review” is done by highly credentialed people, and they are often wrong about the most significant novelties. The only way to decide for oneself about the merits of a controversial matter is to dig into the evidence brought forward on all sides; and it doesn’t take credentials to do that, for example, one can often discern quite easily when someone is dodging a question, being evasive, missing the point, etc. For lengthier discussions, see Science or Pseudoscience.

      However: when Snout and his ilk invoke credentials of mainstreamers as a basis for denigrating dissenters, they should be made to notice that some of us have credentials just as good as those of the mainstreamers whose opinions the Snout-ilk swallow whole. Among dissenters, credentials in biochemistry, virology, and epidemiology easily the equal of any in the mainstream are those of Nobelist Kary Mullis, molecular biologist Peter Duesberg, epidemiologist Gordon Stewart. And immodestly I suggest that when it comes to history and sociology of science, with especial attention to unorthodox views, I haven’t yet come across an HIV/AIDS dogmatist who is as familiar with these matters as I am; and after all, the central question is, “Could such an overwhelming mainstream consensus be wrong?” Yes. It has often been so. So the issue becomes, “Could HIV/AIDS be one of those cases?” And the only way to judge that is by looking at the evidence; which Rethinkers have been doing all along while Snout-ilk refuses to and resorts to name-calling. Unbiased observers would recognize name-callers as most likely wrong on the issues, because if they had evidence on their side they wouldn’t need to call names.

  31. Photonaut said

    Dr Bauer, thought this might interest you: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/the-truth-wears-off-is-there-something-wrong-with-the-scientific-method/

    • Henry Bauer said

      Photonaut:
      Thanks, yes, this piece and comments are of interest. I had been alerted to the article earlier, and my comments on it, below, will be published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration under “Articles of Interest”:

      ARTICLE OF INTEREST

      Jonah Lehrer, “The truth wears off — Is there something wrong with the scientific method?”, New Yorker, 13 December 2010, 52-57.
      The decline effect turns out to be a very widespread phenomenon in mainstream science, not only in parapsychology: anti-depressants have become less effective; “verbal overshadowing” in memory recall became less significant and eventually could not be reproduced; results about the role of symmetry in sexual attraction became less and less significant; the weak coupling ratio between decaying neutrons lost ten standard deviations from 1969 to 2001.
      Lehrer cites much other relevant work, and the suggested explanations, and the article is thought-provoking and highly recommended reading. I will now mention only those points where I would disagree:
      · I think Lehrer makes too much of the effect with respect to drugs, because there is known to be strong “publication” bias there: pharmaceutical companies requesting FDA approval need submit only a few supporting clinical trials and there is no requirement that they report all trials.
      · I think he dismisses too readily publication bias and the file-drawer effect as explanations.
      · In particular, I think there is a strong “file-drawer” type effect in that researchers may try out their hunches on many phenomena before finding one that yields apparently significant positive results.
      · Lehrer overlooks entirely what I think may be a very important piece of the explanation, namely, that the accepted mode of statistical analysis is based on frequentist statistics, which may overstate the significance of results by orders of magnitude. 1,2 First comes publication or selection bias: only apparently positive results get into print. But since many of these are far less significant — far less different from random chance — than the statistical criterion would have it, subsequent regression to the mean becomes very common.

      cr. H. Bauer
      e-mail: hhbauer@vt.edu
      References:
      1. Matthews, R. A. J. 1998. “Facts versus factions: The use and abuse of subjectivity in scientific research.” European Science and Environment Forum Working Paper; reprinted (pp. 247-282) in J. Morris (ed.), Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle, Butterworth, 2000.
      2. Matthews, R. A. J. 1999. “Significance levels for the assessment of anomalous phenomena.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 13: 1-7.

  32. Photonaut said

    Dr Bauer

    Did you at some point post a list, or mention the names of people who shifted the paradigm in a specialized field, but were themselves amateurs, outsiders to that field?

    Thanks in advance…

    • Henry Bauer said

      Photonaut:
      I don’t think I did, and so far I haven’t succeeded in finding pertinent references, though I remember that it was once a generalization that many discoveries were made by people new to a discipline.

  33. Hi Dr. Bauer I have been reading your posts for sometime now, just mustered up the decision to join up. Very interesting. You provide a lot of solid data. Keep up the good work.
    I would just like to ask one question though, I think I may have missed where you might have explained it before.

    I read Dr. Duesberg’s website and a lot of other rethinking data as well and I would like to ask:

    You have presented the data showing that AIDS is not caused HIV and AIDS in Africa is different from the US or UK. But what is HIV really? Is it really an infectious or deadly disease? Should a person test positive what should be the next step? Is it even something to be worried about?

    Thanks for your time.

    • Henry Bauer said

      ronquestion:
      The HIV tests do not detect HIV infection, see http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/press-release-a-positive-routine-hiv-test-is-likely-to-be-a-false-positive-scientist-explains/
      In my book, I argued that a positive HIV test may detect some sort of physiological stress: pregnancy, say, or a vaccination, or some genuine illness. No one knows what a positive HIV test means in and of itself.

      • Thanks for taking the time out to reply Dr. Bauer.

        So does that mean that if someone tests positive then there is nothing to worry about or they should not be worried about being HIV positive at least and perhaps they possibly have some other condition?

        A number of people including a Dr. Bob Beck had claimed to be able to remove HIV from the body using a four step procedure that includes electro stimulation and colloidal silver. He claimed to have hundreds of documented cases of people cured. Is this even possible? It is widely available on the internet.

      • Henry Bauer said

        ronquestion:
        I would always suggest asking a physician to look for any reasons for a positive HIV-test, while recognizing that there might not be any reason conencted with illness, for example, pregnancy, flu or other vaccination, many other possibilities.
        The Internet is a jungle. To my mind, “HIV” doesn’t even exist. For sure, it has never been isolated in pure form to prove its existence. Therefore there are no reliable tests for “it”, and claims to remove “it” are without foudation.

  34. Robin said

    I agree with Henry’s answer there but I’d really like to answer a different question that’s been raised, of the prominence of Germans in AIDS “denialism”.

    The thing is that everyone grows up under systems of authority, parents, governments and so forth. And generally they automatically develop a strong faith in those authorities as being the ultimate arbiter of truth. Such words as university, professor or peer-reviewed are automatically equated with higher credibility.

    It is only when a young person encounters the discrediting of such authorities that they have any hope of seeing through that blind faith. Growing up in the shadow of the collapse of Naziism would make anyone very sceptical of authorities. But growing up in the Anglosphere would have encouraged lack of scepticism. Though in my own case I could not fail to notice my parents’ favouritism towards all my other brothers and so had lost faith in them by age five!

  35. Despite that we don’t know what HIV+ means, it seems worthwhile to try treatments which are not risky to revert to HIV- and thereby both remove medical bias suggesting dangerous treatments and ignoring other medical conditions.

    One of the residues which is part of HIV+ testing is called gp120 and is thought to be a viral coat protein. It appears to act like Nagalase and thus somehow suppresses the natural activation of macrophages. This constitutes a suppression of one part of the human immune system. GcMAF has been shown to reverse this suppression in at least some subjects and change HIV status, whatever that actually means physiologically.

    GcMAF is available in Europe but since there is no patented drug involved, getting funding to do FDA approved clinical trials is very difficult. We need to find a way to fund trials of promising treatments despite the absence of the lure of monopoly profits.

  36. ronquestion said

    I am from the Caribbean where it is widely and frequently said that we have high incidents of HIV yet every year we hear that heart disease and diabetes are the leading cause of death. So as you said Dr. Bauer the figures don’t add up.

  37. Hi Dr. Bauer if possible I would like your opinion on the following: my wife and I are pursuing IVF treatment in order to have a baby. However before we start the treatment we have been instructed to have blood tests which include HIV tests for both of us. A couple years ago we were both treated for chlamydia and Dr. Bauer I am wondering if that can possibly cause a positive result on the HIV test. I have showed my wife your research and website but she still believes the dogma that HIV is a real infectious virus.

    • Henry Bauer said

      ronquestion:
      I have no specific information about false-positive HIV tests from chlamydia. The most comprehensive list of thjigns causing false-positive tests that I know of is by Christine Johnson, attached. The most authoritative source stating that a positive HIV test does not prove infection is Stanley H. Weiss & Elliot P. Cowan, “Laboratory detection of human retroviral infection”, chapter 8 in Gary P. Wormser (ed.). AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection. London etc.: Academic Press; 2004 (4th ed.), I don’t have an electronic copy of it unfortunately.

      Clark Baker at OMSJ cb@omsj.org may have useful advice for what to do if by chance there is a positive HIV test and someone tries to insist that this shows infection.

      Wish I could be more helpful, but there are too many unknowns in all this.

  38. James said

    This isn’t news to you. But perhaps the scale of the problem is. It still staggers me that Gallo is not a household name for fraud, just like Ponzi.

    http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2012/10/fraud-not-error-accounts-for-most.html

    • Henry Bauer said

      James:
      Thanks.
      Yes, it’s not easy, let alone palatable to recognize the scale of the problem. The inference to be drawn, I believe, is that scientific activity nowadays is nothing like the view of science that formed during the impressive gains in understanding through and beyond the 19th century.
      The fact is that Gallo is more typical than an aberration nowadays. See DOGMATISM IN SCIENCE AND MEDICINE: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth, Jefferson (NC): McFarland 2012

  39. Guy said

    I’m not sure where this link should go. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/gambia-says-cures-more-hiv-patients-herbs-171658873.html

    • Henry Bauer said

      Guy:
      There are umpteen different reasons why one might test HIV+, and given the lack of details in this story, nothing much one can do about it

      • Guy said

        If seropositivity to “HIV” can be caused by “umpteen different reasons” many of them not at all alarming if my interpretation of your book and other sources is correct, then if tested positive, how would you rather be treated? By a newly developed yogurt, some boiled herbs, a vitamim regimen, or cytotoxic substances? My guess is that if comparative trials were conducted the cytotoxins would come in last.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Guy:
        The problem is that “treating” “HIV+” without knowing the reason for the positive test is working in the dark.
        Ideally physician would look for possible causes of possible illness and eschew antiretrovirals. Sacher and Koehnlein in Germany do that, and resort to ARVs only if there is manifest illness of undiscoverable cause. Then short courses of ARVs may be used because they are so toxic that they might get rid of any occult infections.

  40. James said

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/12/12/brighton-university-cancels-screening-of-aids-denialist-film/

    • Henry Bauer said

      James:
      Thanks for alerting us to this.
      The article, and the comments on it, and the linked piece from 2009 and the comments on that, illustrate how so many people are content to argue violently without having acquainted themselves with any degree of pertinent knowledge.
      A basic problem is that pronouncements of mainstream scientists are so widely accepted without further ado. That was not without justification before research became captive to money and politics, which it has increasingly since the middle of the 20th century — see From Dawn to Decadence: The Three Ages of Modern Science.
      It remains for the media and the public and the research community itself to recognize this sea-change in scientific activity. Under the traditional view of and trust in science it is inconceivable, unbelievable, that so gross and consequential a blunder as HIV/AIDS theory could have been committed and stay uncorrected for more than three decades. There is no precedent for it in the history of science.
      A survey of many fields of research shows, however, that bureaucracy and dogmatism have come to govern large swaths of science and make it unreliable to a dangerous degree: Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth, Jefferson (NC): McFarland 2012

  41. Denialist-in-Chief said

    “how so many people are content to argue violently without having acquainted themselves with any degree of pertinent knowledge.”

    It’s all down to the three (approx) mentalities I have identified. Namely when presented with some new info, a person can only ask one question as their first question. Is it true? Is it good? Is it believed by the greater power / to my advantage? Is it nice?

    The scientifically minded ask is it true. The authoritarians ask the third combination-question. The ethical-minded ask is it good (anti-racist, gay, helps ill people….), and once they’ve categorised it as bad they have their opinion, and no facts make any difference as anything that conflicts is automatically dismissed as one or other sort of error or deceit. Many of the most “superior” people gain almost all their “knowledge” from secondhand rather than from direct reality.

    One of the key tricks of capitalist propaganda is to attach an emotional ethical hook to make an evil scheme look like a saintly one. This applies to the “benefits of immigration” just as to belief in hiv-aids and to defence of the “socialist” (in reality capitalist parasite) nhs and to various other false notions. You then get left loony fanatics naively campaigning on behalf of big biz in all these spheres.

  42. guy said

    The trick is to establish your point of view as the paradigm. Then all new information will be examined based on the assumption that your point of view is true.

  43. Authoritarian-in-Chief said

    Hey, how come my comment has been given exactly the same avatar as Denialist-in-Chief? Cheeky website.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Authoritarian-in-Chief:
      The clever computer recognizes e-mail addresses and ignores nicknames

  44. James said

    400% increase in “hiv testing”, yet number “infected” remains constant. And that is considered bad news in the warped world of hiv. http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/study-shows-uk-gay-mens-hiv-infection-rate-soars-despite-testing010213 I assume The Lancet study mentioned will (maybe) make more sense. I don’t see how that article manages to say there is a rise in ‘infecting behaviour’ yet the number infected remains constant.

  45. David said

    I have followed the HIV issue over the years because it seems to fit the pattern of other scientific theories that are adhered to long after they are obviously invalid.

    I kept a link to a guy called Tony (sorry I don’t remember his second name), who was convinced that AIDS was a gut infection:

    http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/gutaids

    That link does not work anymore, and I wonder if this is an oversight on his part or whatever, or whether perhaps you store his work somewhere.

    • Henry Bauer said

      David:
      Search on the blog for “intestinal dysbiosis”, plenty of info about this. Not actually a gut infection, damage to the beneficial gut bacteria that are part of the immune system, protecting particularly against fungi, which both PCP and candidiasis are, the two most common opportunistic infections in the original early-1980s “AIDS”.

  46. James Lovelace said

    Most doctors don’t understand statistics.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28166019

    • Henry Bauer said

      James Lovelace:
      Thanks for this excellent link. Applied to HIV/AIDS, the article explains why doctors continue to treat “HIV+” as demonstrating infection with HIV instead of recognizing that most “HIV+” results are false positives.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 117 other followers