HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Re COMMENTS

To comment on a particular essay or blog post,
please press the “Comment” link at that post, not here.
Comments sent to this page will only appear on this page.

All comments are moderated, and may be edited.

I have a  great preference for comments that are
concise, substantive, and not ad hominem.

Giving a fake e-mail address makes it less likely that your comment will be accepted.

There is an automatic spam filter, which sometimes
marks a comment incorrectly as spam, and I don’t always catch that.

If your substantive comment doesn’t appear, try sending it again, or e-mail me direct. If you want to correspond via my e-mail address on my home page, 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”.

56 Responses to “Re COMMENTS”

  1. henk-jan ebbers said

    Mr. Bauer,
    Very good work, my compliments.
    I like your approach, the pointing out of statistical improbabilities and errors.
    This is what made me take a sceptical attitude toward HIV/AIDS some years ago.
    In my opinion this is better than the medical discussions.

    I could send you a link to a Dutch institute that examines AIDS.
    Their offical news is like (this year): ‘AIDS/HIV epidemic not under control’, etc.
    Their publications with the data they find, are quite interesting and tell me a different story (data of 2005):
    – HIV numbers are (slowly) going down. I couldn’t find data about total numbers of tests/percentage of population tested.
    I got the impression that the number of tests are going up because of standard testing of pregnant women (I’m not sure about this).
    – 60% of new infections are among immigrants (many immigrants from Africa below the Sahara)
    – they claim HIV is going up in women, but it looks like this is coming from the immigrants
    – within the Dutch population, mainly homosexual victims
    – HAART has amazing effects: number of AIDS-related dead are much lower than in not-treated patients. But the number
    of total deaths is about equal in both groups.
    – etc.

    Kind regards,
    Henk-Jan
    (as I’m not a native speaker of English I hope I did not make too many errors).

  2. hhbauer said

    Henk-Jan:
    Many thanks for your comments. Please do send the link to the Dutch site–but my Dutch is much worse than your English! I understand only those parts that are clearly like German, which I do read.

  3. G. said

    http://news.aol.com/health/story/_a/pre-chewed-food-gave-hiv-to-kids/20080207063809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

    Check out this link. Thought you might find it very interesting. Your blog is well detailed. It gave me a lot of upto date research information. It’s something that I have been researching for the last couple of decades, it’s very fascinating stuff, especially the dissident views.

  4. Jan said

    Mr. Bauer,
    First of all I want to congratulate you for this blog. It is a really good approach in revealing the flaws of HIV/AIDS.
    I send you three links from German news stations.
    The first link shows an AIDS advocate who claims that there will be a cure for AIDS in at least 10 years from now.
    I wish you all the best, Jan

    http://www.rtl.de/rtlaktuell/rtl_aktuell_videoplayer.php?article=18338&pos=7

    http://www.focus.de/gesundheit/ratgeber/sexualitaet/risiko/hiv-experte_aid_265161.html

    http://www.welt.de/welt_print/article1793990/Therapie_von_Aids_wird_fr_die_Patienten_einfacher.html

  5. Jeet said

    i really want to ask you .. if you can state in points like 1, 2, 3 why you believe that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. i guess then it would make our job of reading your site easier. Coz at this point of time .. it has very poor presentation. And pl give the links to each of the points. Thank you.

  6. Henry Bauer said

    Jeet:

    I can’t put in a nutshell what I wrote a whole book to explain. Ask your local library to get you a copy.

  7. Paul Lineback said

    Prof Bauer:
    This is not a comment about your fine blog, but urgent and sad news. I just saw the following on the LA Times website, which announced that Christine Maggiore died today. It does not describe any circumstances relating to her death yet kind of implies that it was AIDS. Do you know anything?

    LA Times
    Christine Maggiore, prominent HIV skeptic, dead at 52
    12:35 PM, December 29, 2008

    Christine Maggiore, a Van Nuys woman who garnered national attention as an outspoken skeptic of the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, has died, according to the L.A. County coroner’s office.

    Maggiore, 52, was founder of Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, a nonprofit that challenges “common assumptions” about AIDS. Her group’s website and toll-free hotline cater to expectant HIV-positive mothers who shun AIDS medications, want to breast-feed their babies and seek to meet others of like mind. She also had written a book on the subject, titled “What if Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong?”

    In 2006, the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office decided not to file criminal charges against Maggiore, whose daughter died the year before in what the county coroner ruled was AIDS-related pneumonia.

    Los Angeles police had been investigating whether Maggiore and her husband, Robin Scovill, were negligent in not testing or treating Eliza Jane Scovill for the human immunodeficiency virus before her May 2005 death.

    Maggiore had said that she did not take antiviral medications during her pregnancy and that she did not have her daughter tested for the virus after birth.

    In a message on the Alive & Well website, Maggiore explained her own story and how she became an activist. “Through Alive & Well and my book, I hope to share vital facts, inspire essential dialogue and give other people who test HIV -positive the chance to consider a destiny that differs from the one we are taught to expect,” she wrote.

    — Anna Gorman

    • Henry Bauer said

      Paul:
      I don’t know any more than the LATimes story that you cited. I News Googled just now and got only that

  8. Photonaut said

    I’m reeling… Dr Bauer, it’s at a time like this that we realize that beyond all the intellectual jousting, it’s an emotional issue; it’s about belief, no less that one person’s belief in the power of God (or the devil, for that matter) & another’s disbelief in the same. But this shakes my faith, as it is, however irrational that shaking is.

    What is your response? Are you firm in the face of this?

    Jason

    • Henry Bauer said

      Facts are stubborn things, as they say.”HIV” doesn’t cause “AIDS”, and that’s all there is to it. All we’ve heard about Christine’s death so far is that she died suddenly. We do know also that she’s been under incredible stress for years.

      “In the midst of life we are in death”, as they say. People get taken far too early at times, by all sorts of events. Christine wasn’t shaken even by her daughter’s death. One appropriate way to honor her memory would be to try to be as courageous and honest as she was.

  9. Carol said

    Here’s the best info about Christine’s death that I’ve found.
    http://www.deanesmay.com/2008/12/30/what-killed-christine-maggiore/

  10. Stefan R. said

    Today I saw, that there was a final 10 vote cut on the issue at change.org. I tried to save the whole page, which stated at this point, “This idea finished 3rd Place…”. In the saved data I found the following disclaimer which was not visible in the browser-view of the page:

    “Delete Idea
    We wanted to send you a note about an idea you recently submitted on in the Ideas for Change in America competition titled “Take a new look at the cause of AIDS.” We support calls for truth and transparency in our government on every subject and welcome you to directly petition the new administration about this matter, which you can do at http://change.gov/page/s/ofthepeople. However, this is unfortunately outside the scope of the Ideas for Change in America project, which aims to offer specific policy solutions rather than investigations into past government action. As such, it is not eligible to enter the second round of the competition. We understand that good people may disagree with our vision. But this is a private effort not connected to the Obama campaign or transition team, and we reserve the right to keep the competition and its content aligned with the stated mission and overall spirit of the project. Thank you for your understanding. As mentioned above, we welcome you to directly petition the Obama administration about your proposal at http://change.gov/page/s/ofthepeople. And we hope you continue your work to advance change. Best, – The Ideas for Change in America Team
    Change.org”

    On my opinion that’s censorship at it’s best and I wonder who has paid for it and what’s going on there behind the curtains…

  11. Stefan R. said

    @change.org

    The idea “Repeal the Patriot Act” in the category “Others” meets the same excluding conditions mentioned by the change.org team and stays on top.
    For me it’s an act of censorship…

  12. david said

    This is censorship. But I also found the wording of the dissident inspired and proposed change to be problematic. Not every dissident agrees with Duesberg’s theory about the causation of AIDS. I have known people who fell ill with an AIDS OI or, without having ever taken recreational drugs and without having gone on the meds. Would it not have been better to propose a multifactorial model of AIDS causation which takes into acount drug abuse, but other factors as well, much as the Perth Group so wisely does? This “drugs are the sole cause of AIDS in gay men” meme has cost the dissident movement greatly, and it is simply not true!

    • Henry Bauer said

      David: I agree that a less specific wording would be better, but it did also mention malnutrition. And it’s important to remember that “drugs” includes antibiotics, steroids, and other Rx medications, not only recreational and antiretroviral ones. Antibiotics were widely over-used among fast-lane gay men in the 1970s and early 1980s.

  13. Michael said

    You will find at the following link, a letter to the founder and CEO of change.org, verifying that change.org does indeed censor issues, and not just our own, but fully has their own agenda to promote issues of their own preference, and is not in fact promoting any such thing as the “will of the people”.

    http://www.americanbuddhist.net/letter-ben-rattray-change-org

    • Henry Bauer said

      Michael:

      Here’s what I think is the most general point, which I had also sent to change.org before we were censored:
      “President-Elect Obama is commendably aware of the need to be exposed to a range of competent views. However, that need applies in science and medicine as much — maybe even more — as in economics or politics or educational policy. It’s not widely enough appreciated that the major advances in science and in medicine have almost always come DESPITE the mainstream consensus, which always defends vigorously whatever it happens to believe at a given moment.”

  14. I see that there is some discussion about the change.org fiasco here. I’ve written a critique entitled I committed vote fraud @ change.org. on my new blog.

    As a survivor of the “HIV/AIDS” myth, I hope to share my personal experience in more detail in the future. The debate over the Idea Take a new look at the cause of AIDS, followed by Christine’s recent death are the final impetuses to convince me to tell my story more publicly now.

  15. Photonaut said

    Hi Dr Bauer

    I thought this would be of interest to you if you haven’t already seen it: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090112110050.htm

    This seems to correlate with your research showing that being “HIV positive” corresponds to other factors that the presence of a retrovirus.

    Jason

    • Henry Bauer said

      Thanks, Jason, I hadn’t seen it.

      This is like the old flap about CCR5 and other genetic things that CORRELATE TO A SMALL EXTENT with a tendency to test “HIV”-positive. I suspect that one could find correlations between testing “HIV” positive and a very large variety of other physiological and genetic characteristics, since the tests respond to a wide range of antibodies, other proteins, and bits of nucleic acids.

  16. Allen said

    Dr. Bauer,

    Hi, I read an article on Reuters that has a bunch of stats you might like…or rather dislike. In light of some of your recent posts, I noticed this particular quote:

    “[Those 50 and over] have a shorter time from diagnosis to the onset of AIDS, reflecting both age-related faster progression to AIDS and doctors’ failure to consider HIV as a diagnosis,”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE5224DN20090303

    • Henry Bauer said

      Allen:

      Thanks for the link. I went to the original WHO Bulletin. Everything seems to fit with what I’ve been blogging. I’ve discussed the fact that median ages of everything to do with “HIV/AIDS” have been drifting upwards over the years, beginning with tests, then new AIDS diagnoses, then People living With Aids, then deaths from “HIV disease”. Since median ages drifted upwards, naturally the proportions of older people increased.

      That the authors of the WHO Bulletin piece express surprise at the proportion of older people among those with HIV can only mean that they were unfamiliar with HIV prevalence data over the years. The data for PWA given on my blog show the proportion of >50 among them going from 7.0% in 1982 to 9–9.5% from 1984 to 1990, then 10–10.3% to 1993, then increasing to 15.8% by 1998. After that year data were reported (by the CDC) for intervals 45-54 and 55-up, but both >45 and >55 show quite a steady increase over the years. As I said, perfectly in line with my discussion of upward drift in all median ages, reasons for which I also gave; notably, the inclusion in the statistics of healthy people with low CD4 counts from 1993 on.

      As to faster progression to AIDS at older ages, they cite a LINEAR increase, whereas — as I pointed out — all-cause mortality and individual illnesses and diseases show an EXPONENTIAL increase in mortality with age.

      I’m afraid that this WHO BUlletin, and the uncritical summary of it by Reuters, are both fully in the tradition of misleading releases from official sources passed on indiscriminately by the media

  17. Allen said

    Thanks for the quick run-down on the article. It helps me understand what you are saying. The interesting thing is that you agree with the data, as it is, but that your explicit analysis of the data shows that the claims around the mainstream data, as demonstrated in this Reuters article, are flawed. A good showing of the complexity of modern spin and complacence.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Allen:

      Complexity indeed. I have to keep reminding myself that “HIV+” is a marker, not a cause. And that umpteen different things can lead to “HIV+” — some of them health-threatening, others not. Often, reports don’t have enough information to venture a reasonable alternative explanation to the mainstream one.

      I appreciate your interest.

  18. Kenny said

    To Dr. Bauer,

    Hello, I recently stumbled upon this site after seeing the House of Numbers documentary at my school and I must say I was very surprised at the things I didn’t know about HIV/AIDS. I’m just wondering if perhaps you could possibly answer these questions for me or provide links/articles.

    1) If people have been diagnosed multiple times with being HIV positive and DO NOT take whatever medication/prescription drug they’re suppose to take what happens to those individuals?

    2) For the people who have been confirmed positive for HIV and DO take the drugs for HIV/AIDS, what happens to them? do they sick? how long does it take for them to die?

    3)Have there been studies where people diagnosed with HIV/AIDS get off the prescribed drugs and turn out to be completely fine for many many years?

    Kenny

    • Henry Bauer said

      Kenny: There’s a lot on my blog to answer all those questions.
      For (1), search with the terms “long-term non-progressors” and “elite controllers”. We don’t know how many there are because there’s no way to find out without testing the whole population, but various inferences suggest that a great proportion, maybe even the majority of “HIV+” people who are not ill with anything when they test positive, are at little or no risk just because they test positive. The major reason for this is that the tests repsond “positive” to all sorts of conditions, for example pregnancy or tetanus shot or flu vaccination, which are hardly health-threatening.
      For (2), search with “mortality”; and look defintiely at “AIDS” deaths: owing to antiretroviral drugs or to lack of antiretroviral treatment?, 2 October 2008, and Living with HIV; Dying from What?, 10 December 2008.
      For (3), I know only of personal accounts. As with elite controllers, there’s no obvious way to gather such data because people in that situation often have good reason not to make it public because doctors are trained to insist that people should not stop antiretroviral treatment. Google “Karri Stokely”, “Audrey Serrano”, “Lindsey Nagel—living proof” for a few examples.

  19. Dr Bauer:

    Two of the major obstacles facing HIV questioners are as follows:

    OBSTACLE 1. Most onlookers cannot believe that so many famous people and organizations can all be wrong — from Clinton, Mandela, Oprah and Liz Taylor to the World Health Organization.

    OBSTACLE 2. Most onlookers probably feel that the HIV questioners are conducting their questionings from far too many different perspectives. Actually, this wide variety of perspectives counts in favour of the questioners, but onlookers might not understand that. They probably expect questioners and dissidents to speak with one voice, because they assume that any error in the mainstream HIV/AIDS construct ought to be traceable to an isolated glitch somewhere. But the questionings range across virological lab procedures, epidemiological patterns, loony statistics, blood tests that signify who-knows-what, reports of deliberate fraud, worthless quantitative blood science, murderous medications, and an allegedly deadly pestilence that keeps changing its definitions, its diagnoses, its symptoms and its victims.

    Once Obstacle 2 is overcome, Obstacle 1 will retreat. It is therefore important to shed as much light as possible on the rise of Big Science, Big Medicine and Big Media, and their progressive takeover by Big Power and Big Money. This will help onlookers to understand that when a field of scientific inquiry is increasingly “infected” by powerful vested interests with no regard for truth, then that field of inquiry will ultimately cross a critical threshold, beyond which the whole “body” of inquiry becomes “ill”. The AIDS/HIV questionings are coming from so many perspectives because so many “organs” of the medical-industrial body are “stricken” to some degree.

    Sure enough, there are unseemly squabbles in other scientific fields — even in cosmology. But as far as I can see, questionable science flourishes most happily within medicine and its allied fields. People need to understand why. For me, Ivan Illich’s classic book “Medical Nemesis” was a superb start. I have not yet read your book, “Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory”, but judging by its Table of Contents, it adopts a good, broad-based, holistic, historical approach. I like to understand things in their broader contexts.

    By 1981, the rapidly-swelling medical monolith had already crossed that critical threshold, and had developed soft patches all over –– many more than I realized at that time. Then the medical-govermental-media machine created AIDS –– a “disease entity” jerry-built upon afflictions among marginalized people in the planet’s most hectic hyper-urbanized zones. Now, decades later, that same disease entity has shifted its media focus, all the way from those hectic zones to the African poor.

    In its present shape, the “HIV/AIDS” edifice serves many purposes. Among them:

    * African ills are blamed on a naughty virus. This conveniently shifts attention away from the sick-making roles of colonizers.

    * Pharma and its satellites rake in their profits.

    * The pro-condom propaganda (besides being motivated by fears of death from sex) suits anyone who fears population growth among the Great Unwashed, but who lacks the courage to openly discuss population questions with regard to both poor and rich, because he is scared of being accused of racism.

    * Mass diagnoses of HIV/AIDS serve the requirements of several long-term trends in the evolution of social control (long-term means thousands of years and longer). For example, the diagnoses discourage breastfeeding and reinforce growing sex taboos. At giraffemilk.com I have posted a free book that discusses these and several other sub-processes in the evolution of social control.

    Gabriel Michaelides.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Gabriel Michaelides: You are absolutely spot-on with both 1 and 2. While 2 may be a bit less obvious than 1, I think it is also the more important one, as you say.
      Perhaps the problems are greatest in medicine because
      1. that’s also where wishful thinking is just about universal, a desire to find guaranteed ways to be healthy and live long
      2. that’s where it is particularly hard to get sound empirically based understanding: can’t experiment on human beings, so analogies with animalstudies and, worst of all, taking statistical correlations to indicate causation. “Risk factors” are no more than associations, reducing a risk factor is not the same as reducing actual risk, may never do any good, and may sometimes do more harm than good —as with statin side-effects of peripheral neuropathy and muscle weakening.

  20. James said

    Dr. Bauer,

    Help me here. When you say that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS do you mean that an idea can’t cause one of 29+ diseases because it isn’t an adequately proven virus like some people say? Why not ask, show me “HIV”?

    • Henry Bauer said

      James:
      Trying to reach a wide audience, I feel the need to use the commonly understood terms. As to “show me HIV”, I tried to address that for a general audience with my “HIV tests are not HIV tests”, whose implication is what you say, “show me HIV”.
      I agree with you entirely that the fundamental substantive point is that “HIV” has never been isolated or proven to exist.

  21. James said

    Dr. Bauer,

    Thank you I see now how you approached the issue of “HIV” not being isolated or proved to exist. If there is no “HIV” except as a claim there cannot be a true test. How in the world did the original “HIV” scientists make up these tests. Where do the test manufactures get the chemicals in the test from?

    • Henry Bauer said

      James:
      I’m not familiar with the technicalities. What’s clear is that the basis of the tests is substances present in some but not all of the AIDS patients used by Gallo et al. in inventing the tests.

  22. Art Binninger said

    I was diagnosed HIV+ in March 2004. By October 2006, my liver was nearly gone from the toxic effects of the HIV medications (although the doctors strenuously denied it). I stopped the meds entirely in January 2007 and transitioned to vitamins and supplements. I also began having the VA look after my HIV but have resisted returning to medications in spite of their warnings of dire health consequences. I’m working a 40 hour week as a press operator, lift weights about 4 times a week and do computer graphics in the evening. I’ve volunteered to share my findings with others but have been consistently (or rudely) rebuffed. Are there any open-minded medical professionals in the southern California area who would like to learn more about my case and maybe improve the lives of others? My CD-4 count is currently under 200 but I’m recovering nicely from a cold (or flu) as I write this. Is that supposed to happen?

    • Henry Bauer said

      Art Binninger:
      I don’t know of such people, try asking at Questioning AIDS.
      As to CD4 counts, I believe it is becoming generally recognized that CD4 levels in peripheral blood are not an indication of the state of the immune system as a whole. As Dr Juliane Sacher — among others — has pointed out, the immune system sends thins to wherever they’re needed in the body at any given time. And — see my recent post about intestinal dysbiosis — it’s being increasingly recognized that the state of the gut microflora and associated immune functions are critically involved in “HIV” testing and general health.

  23. CFSBOSTON said

    There is no mystery to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME). CFS/ME leads to HIV-Negative AIDS.

    It horrifies me on a regular basis that the medical establishment, politicians, and media have not gotten around to reporting the fact that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

    While millions of ailing CFS/ME patients get neglected and belittled, very healthy HIV+ people are convinced to take a bunch of expensive and toxic medications. What a $ham.

    See how easy? No mystery here.

    I am living proof that CFS/ME patients are the real AIDS patients.

    http://www.cfsstraighttalk.blogspot.com

  24. Steve said

    Dr. Bauer –
    Since you are a student of science studies, I wonder if you would not agree with me: one reason why the HIV-AIDS connection is debated and not entirely settled one way or another is that there can be no ethical experiment to definitively demonstrate a connection (or lack of one) in human subjects. But, if you are so sure of the lack of connection — you speak of it with tremendous certainty — why not put it to the test, and be a human guinea pig? Why not accept an injection of HIV+ blood to test your hypothesis directly and experimentally, along with your other detractor friends?

    There is historical precedence for doing science in such a way, right? Remember Parent-DuChatelet’s personal testing of the miasma theory of disease transmission by visiting the Paris sewers and horse carcass dumps, and sleeping in a room full of stinking wet hemp? He lived, and thereby helped topple that mistaken theory.

    Curious what you think of this proposal.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Steve:
      If you Google “Willner HIV injection” you will learn that this experiment was already done in 1994.
      Moreover, I have no idea where one would get an authentic pure sample of HIV, since it has never been isolated.
      Attempts to show that the genome of HIV is known by cloning it demonstrated only that the notion was wrong in some way because the prepared particles self-destructed: Virology. 1992 Aug;189(2):695-714. “Factors underlying spontaneous inactivation and susceptibility to neutralization of human immunodeficiency virus.” Layne SP, Merges MJ, Dembo M, Spouge JL, Conley SR, Moore JP, Raina JL, Renz H, Gelderblom HR, Nara PL.

      Beyond that, who would be convinced? If people can’t look at the mainstream data on HIV tests that I collated in my book, and see the trends that the CDC pronounced genuine, and recognize that this proves “HIV” to be not infectious and not correlated with AIDS, then no amount of further data or such demonstrations as you suggest would have any effect. You can drag a horse to water, but you can’t make true HIV-AIDS believers look at data.

      If you need even more reasons why your suggestion is an attempt at rhetorical argument and not a genuine proposal, recall that the mainstream believes that there is a latent period of average length 11 years between “infection” and symptoms of illness. Infecting an 80-year-old would hardly be a worthwhile project in attempts to shpw the injection harmless. The guinea pig would very likely die within a dozen years or so, whereupon you and your ilk would pronounce it an AIDS death, just as the non-HIV non-AIDS deaths of Christine Maggiore and her daughter and some others have been baselessly claimed to be HIV-AIDS deaths.

      • Steve said

        Wow.

        You’re quick to a defensive position and quick to assume that I’m ingenuine…

        Thank you for the Wilmer study – I was unaware of that.

        Please don’t call me ‘you and your ilk’.

        I’m no AIDS expert (I wish you would admit that neither are you), so I was unaware of the 11 year latency claim – I thought it was quicker. Thanks for that info too.

        You’re right, of course, that you accepting such an injection would show nothing, since you are old. I didn’t know your age. And even from a medical science perspective, an experimental sample size of one is insufficient.. However, my original question still stands: do you think a controlled experimental study could settle this? I honestly do not think you show enough experimental data in your book (or any) to make the claims that you make, and I admit that the CDC and others have no direct experimental data to demonstrate a HIV-AIDS connection either – how can one assert any scientific inference with so little experimental data? In my opinion, the case is open until then.

        Please don’t confuse my ignorance with a desire to ‘get you’. It took me a while to respond to this, since your tone made my first attempt at a response combative. It was a genuine question, which you answered well, but between unwarranted attacks on my intentions.

        Peace

      • Henry Bauer said

        Steve:
        Sorry. It’s just that I and my ilk get very tired of being asked questions based in ignorance; and it’s not easy to avoid the inference of combativeness when one is being told to inject oneself with what the writer seems to regard as a toxic substance.
        I understand that it’s not easy to become familiar with the enormous literature in this field, and I keep coming upon things I “should” have known about already. But my preferred way of learning, a lifelong habit, is to read as much as possible before I start arguing with people.

  25. BSdetector said

    TO: Steve

    There are 1000s of people in the US and the EU who do not believe the HIV=AIDS=DEATH nonsense. I’m sure many of these people would unhesitatingly participate in a clinical study where their health could be closely watched and where they would sign a release limiting the study designers of any responsibility of not receiving those “Life giving” HIV drugs. Why is this not done? Because they do not WANT to know the results. The idea that this is unethical is garbage. Clinical study subjects do not receive treatment for the studied disease all the time. We call this a “blinded, placebo controlled study”. Have you heard of this? Your entire opinion rests on the assumption that a “positive” “HIV Antibody” test is 100% fatal. It is not. And NO ONE wants proof of this.

  26. Steve said

    Dr. Bauer,
    Who’s arguing?

    I don’t assume that HIV+ blood (or “HIV+ blood”, if you prefer) is toxic. So I wasn’t threatening you, or belittling you. Sorry if it appeared that way. I don’t know whether it is toxic or not; all i know is what I read – I have not direct experience that pertains to this issue. My question is on of the nature of science and epistemology with respect to your topic – how do we know stuff? I think experimental medicine is the surest way towards knowledge of medical truths. But the issue of the relationship between HIV and AIDS is problematic, because there’s no way to get such an experiment past an ethical review board, is there? So all we have are correlative studies. So, the topic is unsettled. To me anyway.

    So, I’m skeptical of your position, but skeptical of the other position too.

    But what do I know – I’m just a guy who likes reading about science and medicine, and who likes to go the source when he can.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Steve:
      “My question is on of the nature of science and epistemology with respect to your topic – how do we know stuff?”
      Please look into my book, “Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method”.
      You can’t do direct experiments with human beings (some people did, of course).
      With HIV and AIDS, look into my book, “The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory”. The totality of HIV tests in the USA shows that it isn’t infectious and that it does not correlate with AIDS. Therefore HIV is not the cause of AIDS; if it were, then the two would be correlated. Correlation never proves causation, but lack of correlation disproves causation.

  27. Jim said

    Dr. Bauer,

    You say, “The totality of HIV tests in the USA shows that it isn’t infectious and that it does not correlate with AIDS. Therefore HIV is not the cause of AIDS.”
    Please explain, when you say “it” what are you referring to?. An artist’s conception of a retrovirus named HIV? Do people form antibodies against artwork? :) Do you think that either of the original experiments conducted by Montagnier/Gallo convincingly demonstrated a new retrovirus consistant with “its” physical discription and action? If not, then how can there be any tests for “it”? Where did they get “it’s” proteins (antigens) for the antibody test kits? Why does it make sense to talk about correlations with tests that my be devoid of any meaningful basis? Weren’t the original experiments supposed to demonstrate infectivity? If they didn’t, then why would the “totality” of tests with no basis now serve to demonstrate infectivity? If there is a problem with the HIV theory of AIDS why not come at HIV directly, why not strike at the root?. If HIV can be blown out of the water, the “tests”, the anti”virals”, and a lot of unnecessary human suffering will go with it.

    Jim

    • Henry Bauer said

      Jim:
      I used “HIV” here like the standard use, namely, whatever it is that HIV tests detect (or claim to detect). The mainstream and its groupies have insisted all along that these tests are highly specific.
      In my book, I introduced the term “F(HIV)” for “the frequency of positive HIV tests”, precisely so as not to imply that HIV tests detect an actual retrovirus that has been properly isolated and characterized.
      So I could rephrase my response to Jim as, whatever it is that HIV tests detect, that thing(s) is/are not infectious and does/do not cause AIDS since numbers for the latter and for the former are not correlated (chronologically, geographically, in M/F relations, in racial relationships). Since the mainstream view is that HIV tests do detect what causes AIDS, the mainstream view is wrong as demonstrated by its own data.

    • Guy said

      Jim,

      Do you have a link to either of the original studies that you imply “convincingly demonstrated a new retrovirus consistant with “its” physical discription and action”? I would love to read them.

  28. Jim said

    Dr. Bauer,

    I agree with you completely. The “HIV” theory of AIDS causation might be deconstructed in reverse. But, again, why not consistently go after HIV directly when communicating with people that are new to the controversy and rightfully skeptical? If you and others are correct, in that the “HIV” retrovirus has not been properly isolated and characterized, then is it not self-evident that there would be all manner problems with mainstream groupie data etc. as it relates to anything “HIV”? Why lead the charge with the corroborating evidence?

    Jim

    • Henry Bauer said

      Jim:
      The analysis of HIV test data in my book is the most direct way I know of to discredit HIV/AIDS theory.
      If you tell people that HIV has never been isolated, they refer you to all the “isolates” available from NIH, and it’s a long job to deconstruct that.

  29. Gary said

    Dr. Bauer

    I have recently been reading about drug resistant HIV and I am not certain but how can they be sure a person diagnosed with HIV is drug resistant when the drugs themselves are attacking the body?

    • Henry Bauer said

      Gary:
      Nothing like this in the mainstream literature makes any sense, since “HIV” tests don’t detect an infection. The tests may respond to any number of chemical substances. Antiretroviral drugs affect many physiological functions. Apparently in some cases that lowers “viral load” or decreases the proteins that respond on antibody tests— i.e. there are changes in some of the substances that respond to “HIV” tests. In other cases, the drugs don’t change the results of “HIV” tests appreciably so those are called “drug resistant HIV”. But it doesn’t mean anything about an actual virus being drug-resistant

  30. K. Lee said

    Hello,

    I’ve recently come across you and this website and the website , ‘The case against Hiv’ makes it easy to look at all the evidence their is against the hypothesis.
    Then I came across the blog by Snout, which looks at some of your evidence, something about misrepresenting/misreading epidemiology etc etc etc,
    I was self convinced that hiv was harmless but looking at AIDSTRUTH website and other ‘politically correct’ science sites I never know if a ”dissident” is making a legit claim, if people are misrepresenting things, or if the ”debunkers” evidence is any more correct.
    Their is so much science to read.
    I’m totally confused. Hearing people making claims that counter the ‘so called’ ”Denialists,quacks,Crackpots”, and the Aids Questioners/re-thinkers/dissidents making claims that counter the official story.

    I understand that their’s a lot of money involved in ‘the war against Aids’. So it’s hard to know if the official story is so factual.

    I hope you keep up the good work( and presenting the evidence which is correct)
    Good luck getting to the bottom of this mess… looking at all the sides of the debate makes my brain hurt.

    PS:
    (Have you looked at christl meyers theory about hiv being in your genome or something , I haven’t heard much about that being discussed http://christl-meyer-science.net/en/aids)

    • Henry Bauer said

      K. Lee:

      I’ve read only superficially about Christl Meyer’s views. I too haven’t seen it discussed by others.

      I exchanged quite a lot of comments with Snout when I first started this blog as a follow-up to my book, but after a while stopped because he seems impervious to data and evidence.

  31. K .Lee said

    Has anyone read about this ”new strain” of hiv. a3/02
    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/11/29/new-aggressive-strain-hiv-discovered/
    a new study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, scientists detailed the new strain as a “recombinant” virus – a hybrid of two virus strains. Called A3/02 – a cross between the 02AG and A3 viruses – the strain can develop into AIDS in just five years after first infection – one of the shortest time periods for HIV-1 types.

    So far, the A3/02 strain has only been seen in Guinea-Bissau, West Africa, but other studies have shown that recombinants are spreading more quickly across the globe.

    interesting..

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 114 other followers