HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Archive for the ‘HIV skepticism’ Category


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/07/27

The mainstream literature reveals quite clearly that essentially nothing is known or understood about “HIV” or about “AIDS”; but to appreciate these revelations one must be prepared sometimes to read more or less between the lines.

A fine opportunity for that was provided by the recent 20th International AIDS Conference. The lack of knowledge is not admitted overtly but it clearly underlies what the HIV/AIDS protagonists regard as grist for further research funding. For example, When will there be a cure?
“‘We have plenty of data telling us we can make progress,’ said Françoise Barré-Sinoussi . . . . But she’s not foolish enough to give a timetable. She recalled predictions in the mid-1980s that a vaccine would be relatively simple to design. As of now, of course, there is still no vaccine even close to clinical availability.”

30 years of promises, announced breakthroughs later retracted, and other “progress” haven’t gotten anywhere.

What needs to be known?
“Which cells are targets? How do they work? Are there antibodies that can be manipulated? How? What cells can harbor latent HIV? Can they be located and destroyed?”

“[W]e don’t know how to eradicate the virus. We don’t know all its hiding places. And we don’t have good tools to measure it even in the hiding places we know about.”

And of course the central question remains, how on Earth “HIV” is supposed to destroy the immune system. No credible mechanism has been discovered during these 30+ years (section 1.3 in The Case against HIV).

One doesn’t know whether to laugh or to cry in recalling Robert Gallo’s assertion a couple of decades ago: “We probably know more about how HIV produces its pathology than
about the pathological mechanism of virtually any other microbe” (p. 296 in Virus Hunting: AIDS, Cancer, and the Human Retrovirus: A Story of Scientific Discovery, 1991).

As to the Mississippi baby that had been thought to have been cured by massive antiretroviral treatment starting at birth, a couple of years later she was found to be still (or again!?) “infected”. More conundrums:
Ø The child had no detectable immune response to HIV before the rebound. What was keeping the virus at bay?
Ø Sensitive tests could find no latent virus. Where was HIV hiding?
Ø What triggered the rebound?

Dissidents, of course, DO understand what’s going on. There’s no such thing as “HIV infection”. “HIV+” is a very non-specific biomarker for a number of conditions, chiefly those associated with weakened immune systems involving CD4 cells; but not only those: for example, pregnancy is a “risk factor” for testing “HIV+” (section in The Case against HIV).

HIV/AIDS theory rests on the ignorant mistake that is so prevalent, notably in medical “research”: confusing an association with a causal relationship. “AIDS” victims often tested “HIV+” because some or many of the conditions umbrella’d under “AIDS” are associated with weakened immune systems and the propensity to test “HIV+”.

By construing positive tests as signs of infection, mainstream researchers are chasing phantoms, inevitably turning up conundrums and mysteries and enigmas, endlessly chasing red herrings and wild geese. Browse the rich crop of absurdities generated in this way.

Nothing about HIV/AIDS theory makes sense or fits the evidence, but the mainstream continues its insane pursuits: insane because they keep repeating the same blunder-based activities and expecting that somehow there will be a different result, that understanding instead of conundrums will somehow pop up.


Posted in experts, HIV absurdities, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, uncritical media, vaccines | Tagged: | 2 Comments » and its origin

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/06/19

When a website labels itself as some sort of “truth”, it’s natural to wonder why its creators feel the need to do so. If it actually conveys truth, that would soon become obvious. In this case, the opposite soon became obvious. was set up by vigilantes determined to defend the indefensible HIV = AIDS dogma, which is perpetually endangered as “lifesaving” drugs disable and kill and as absurdities multiply.

The immediate impetus for establishing had been Celia Farber’s article, “Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science” (Harper’s, March 2006), which described the death of a pregnant woman, Joyce Hafford, who had been participating in a clinical trial of “antiretroviral” drugs to determine what the “treatment-limiting toxicities” might be. One wonders how any Human Subjects Review Board anywhere would approve such a trial, let alone a trial that enrolled pregnant women. In plainer words, such an experiment administers toxic substances in increasing amounts until signs of toxic harm become obvious.
The drugs being compared were Viracept (nelfinavir) and Viramune (nevirapine), which were used in combination with AZT (Retrovir, zidovudine) and Epivir (lamivudine). The toxicities of all those drugs were well known before Hafford was subjected to them in 2003.
The deadly toxicity of AZT was particularly well known. It was the first “antiretroviral” drug, and some 150,000 “HIV-positive” individuals had died under AZT “treatment” over about a decade (“HAART saves lives — but doesn’t prolong them!?”).
As for “Nevirapine (Viramuneä)”, the NIH Treatment Guidelines (4 February 2002) had already described its life-threatening “side” effects:
“ • Severe, life-threatening hepatotoxicity, including fulminant and cholestatic hepatitis, hepatic necrosis, and hepatic failure. Patients should be advised to seek medical evaluation immediately should signs and symptoms of hepatitis occur.
• Severe, life-threatening, and even fatal skin reactions, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and hypersensitivity reactions characterized by rash, constitutional findings, and organ dysfunction have occurred with nevirapine treatment”.

But vigilante defenders of HIV/AIDS orthodoxy were distraught that such a respectable mainstream magazine as Harper’s would bring to wide attention the truth about the reckless manner in which toxic “antiretroviral drugs” are tested on unwary individuals and subsequently prescribed to equally unwary “HIV-infected” individuals.’s “website was developed in March, 2006, by Bob Funkhouser of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Nathan Geffen of The Treatment Action Campaign, Dr. John P. Moore of Weill Medical College of Cornell University, and Dr. Bette Korber of Los Alamos National Laboratory. It is hosted by The Treatment Action Campaign” (Wayback Machine snapshot, 16 March 2006).

It is worth noting that these and other HIV/AIDS vigilantes habitually denigrate statements from people like Peter Duesberg by pointing out that they have never actually done research on HIV or on AIDS. But among the AIDStruth groupies, only Moore has the distinction of being an actual researcher in this field, and his accomplishments include a completely unsuccessful search for an HIV microbicide and the synthesis of an “HIV” that self-destructed spontaneously (Layne SP, Merges MJ, Dembo M, Spouge JL, Conley SR, Moore JP, Raina JL, Renz H, Gelderblom HR, Nara PL, “Factors underlying spontaneous inactivation and susceptibility to neutralization of human immunodeficiency virus”, Virology, 189 [1992] 695-714).

By 3 January 2007, there had been added to the AIDStruth team the economist Professor Nicoli Nattrass, Director of the AIDS and Society Research Unit, University of Cape Town, the activist Richard Jeffreys of the Treatment Action Group, the lawyer Jeanne Bergman of HealthGAP, and another activist, Gregg Gonsalves of the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (but still listed as developing the website in March 2006). More people who had not themselves done any actual research in this field.

By 27 January 2008, the “AIDS Truth team members” were listed as “(in alphabetical order):
· Dr. Nicholas Bennett, Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital, Syracuse, New York
· Dr. Jeanne Bergman, The Center for HIV Law and Policy in New York City
· Martin Delaney, Founding director of Project Inform
· Dr. Brian Foley, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico
· Bob Funkhouser, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico
· Nathan Geffen, Treatment Action Campaign, Cape Town, South Africa
· Gregg Gonsalves, AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa
· Dr. Bette Korber, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico
· Dr. John P. Moore, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York City
· Dr. Nicoli Nattrass, Director of the AIDS and Society Research Unit, University of Cape Town, South Africa
· Ken Witwer, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland”

By 26 July 2009, designated as “past contributors” were Delaney (deceased), Jeffreys, Funkhouser, and Moore. Added was Eduard Grebe (AIDS and Society Research Unit, University of Cape Town, South Africa).

By 26 January 2010, Funkhouser was again a team member, and this remains the team except that former graduate student Witwer is now Dr. Witwer.


Posted in antiretroviral drugs, clinical trials, experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism, Legal aspects | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/06/13

Etienne de Harven has suggested how “Human Endogenous Retroviruses can resolve HIV/AIDS puzzles”.  Our friend and colleague Mo A. alerted us to this highly pertinent article:

J Virol. 2014 Jun 11. pii: JVI.00919-14. [Epub ahead of print]

Unfixed endogenous retroviral  insertions in the human population.

Marchi E1, Kanapin A2, Magiorkinis G3, Belshaw R4.
Author information
1  Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK.
2  The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Oxford OX3 7BN, UK.
3  Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
4  School of Biomedical and Healthcare Sciences, Plymouth University, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK

One lineage of human endogenous retroviruses, HERV-K(HML2), is upregulated in many cancers, some autoimmune/inflammatory diseases, and in HIV-infected cells. Despite three decades of research it is not known if these viruses play a causal role in disease, and there has been recent interest in whether they can be used as immunotherapy targets. Resolution of both these questions will be helped by an ability to distinguish between the effects of different integrated copies of the virus (loci). Research so far has concentrated on the 20 or so recently integrated loci that, with one exception, are in the human reference genome sequence. However, this viral lineage has been copying in the human population within the last million years, so some loci will inevitably be present in the human population but absent from the reference sequence. We therefore performed the first detailed search for such loci by mining whole genome sequences generated by Next Generation Sequencing. We found a total of 17 loci: ranging from being present in only two of the 358 individuals examined to being present in over 95% of them. On average, each individual had six loci that are not in the human reference genome sequence. Comparing the number of loci we found to an expectation derived from a neutral population genetic model suggests that the lineage was copying till at least ∼250,000 years ago.

About 5% of our genome sequence is composed of the remains of retroviruses that over millions of years have integrated into the chromosomes of egg and/or sperm precursor cells. There are indications that protein expression of these viruses is higher in some diseases, and we need to know (a) whether these viruses have a role in causing disease and (b) whether they can be used as immunotherapy targets in some of them. Answering both questions requires a better understanding of how individuals differ in the viruses they carry. We therefore carried out the first careful search for new viruses in some of the many human genome sequences that are now available thanks to advances in sequencing technology. We also compare the number we find to a theoretical expectation to see if it is likely that these viruses are still replicating in the human population today.

Copyright © 2014, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
PMID: 24920817 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]



Posted in HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

Mainstream tiptoes toward intestinal dysbiosis theory of “HIV”

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/05/24

“Fixing leaks in the gut may stall progression of HIV”, reports the New Scientist, pointing to “the first direct proof that microbes that leave the gut and travel to the rest of the body — a process called microbial translocation — is the mechanism that triggers . . . health complication in people with HIV. Chronic activation of the immune system and inflammation are key triggers for the development of AIDS in many people with HIV, even if they are doing well on anti-retroviral drugs. That’s because these immune responses in turn trigger a constellation of diseases normally associating with ageing, such as cardiovascular disease.

. . . .
Earlier research found that people with HIV who had a leakier gut were more likely to die . . . .”.

All that remains is for the mainstream to realize that it is not “HIV” that causes the leaky gut, “HIV” is simply a biomarker for leaky gut.

[The Journal reference given in the New Scientist article, Journal of Clinical Investigation, DOI: 10.1172/JCI75090, seems to be incorrect. My library delivered for that DOI a not particularly pertinent article: Antignano et al., Methyltransferase G9A regulates T cell differentiation during murine intestinal inflammation, Journal of Clinical Investigation 124.5 (May 2014) 1945-55].

For more about intestinal dysbiosis and HIV/AIDS, see
Mainstream discovers that “HIV” = intestinal dysbiosis (2013/07/11); A **CURE** for AIDS (2011/07/18); Intestinal dysbiosis: more and more confirmations (2011/05/24); Intestinal dysbiosis theory confirmed (2011/04/28); HAART denialism, contd. (2010/12/06); Intestinal Dysbiosis theory confirmed (2010/11/05); Same old, same old ignorance and idiocies (2010/03/13); Must read  (2010/02/12); Why pregnant women tend to test “HIV-positive” (2009/10/05 ); More MAINSTREAM ALTERNATIVE treatment for “HIV/AIDS” (2009/09/28); “HIV” and illness: Which comes first? (2009/07/23); Nobel Prize Citation for “HIV” “Discovery”: Errors and Deficiencies (2008/10/16);
HAART saves lives — but doesn’t prolong them!? (2008/09/17 ); UPDATE: MORE SPONTANEOUS SEROREVERSION (2008/05/23); UNRAVELING HIV/AIDS (2008/03/08); AIDS AS INTESTINAL DYSBIOSIS (2008/02/23); What really caused AIDS: Slicing through the Gordian Knot (2008/02/20).

Posted in HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism | Tagged: | 18 Comments »

More reviews of DOGMATISM book

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/05/22

Two substantial reviews offering much room for further thought have just been published of Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth:

Journal of Scientific Exploration, 28 (2014) 142-48, by Donald J. DeGracia
Dogmatism in Science and Medicine (DSM) by Henry H. Bauer is about the corruption of modern science. For practicing scientists it is a disturbing book to read. Medicine is bitter, yet we put up with it to get better. DSM is bitter medicine intended to improve the health of science.
. . . .
Dr. Bauer does a professional, competent, and important job bringing the corruption of modern science into the light. The criticisms offered above do not detract from the fundamental correctness of the picture DSM paints, but instead underscore its seriousness, and the need to further refine the picture. To scoff at DSM or to think it is off-base is merely to reveal that the scoffer is woefully uninformed about the transformations that have occurred in science over the past decades. If one is a practicing scientist, or a concerned citizen of good will, one ignores this book at one’s own peril.

Journal of Scientific Exploration, 28 (2014) 149-52, by Brian Josephson
At the end of this fascinating book, Bauer asks the question: Can 21st century science become trustworthy again? He suggests that change must come from outside the existing institutions, which merely serve to perpetuate knowledge monopolies, but first the need for change must become generally recognized . Possibilities discussed include a Science Court; independent, publicly funded institutions that can assess scientific claims of public importance; and designated funds for non-mainstream research. Something of this nature is clearly needed.




Posted in HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism, prejudice, uncritical media | Tagged: | 5 Comments »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 113 other followers