HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Disproving HIV/AIDS theory

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2018/02/06

After an old friend, a notably successful scientist, had read my book, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory (McFarland, 2007), he remarked that the trouble was that it would lead to undermining trust in science overall.

But he was assuming, as do so many scientists, and so many of us who have been promoting HIV/AIDS dissent and AIDS Rethinking, that it is the facts of the matter that count; that evidence and factual reality are bound to carry the day in public discourse and public policies. That is simply not so nowadays.

Perhaps it was not so far from the truth in times past, when there was a “basic” or “pure” science carried on by relatively disinterested truth-seekers who were able to command sufficient research resources that came without strings attached.

Was that a purely mythical past?

Not really. During my student days and early faculty jobs at an Australian university, technical facilities were automatically available to the faculty: glass-blowing and other technical needs were provided by permanently employed service people; routinely used chemicals were on hand; reasonable sums of money were provided for purchase of more exotic items; publication was supported by secretarial staff, and of course in those times one’s articles were published in journals that did not demand “page charges” or other fees. We studied what interested us, what we thought would be fruitful, not what others told us to study.

That was half a century ago. There was competition, of course, but it was within civilized bounds. Peer reviewers could make bad decisions, perhaps partly under the influence of bias, but there was not much attempted suppression of rivals just for the sake of personal advancement, and outright fraud was rare indeed. We studied and practiced science pretty much as idealists. A fellow academic of my generation told me about 20 years ago that he still had his graduate students read Sinclair Lewis’s Arrowsmith for its early-20th-century message of honesty, integrity, disinterestedness.

Younger people will doubtless read the above with incredulity. Nowadays a career in scientific research begins by working on what the scientific consensus considers appropriate. One spends a significant number of years in postdoctoral and other temporary positions waiting for the rare tenure-track slot to open up, competing then with other hopefuls who are also supported by long publication lists and records of research support; or perhaps one goes into “applied” research in industry or government. In any case, the research that gets done and then published is determined by the prevailing scientific consensus, not by the individual inspiration and ingenuity of an intellectual entrepreneur. In 1980, the recipient of a prize for scientific work described the subterfuge needed to get research support for anything novel, unconventional (Richard A. Muller, “Innovation and scientific funding”, Science, 209 [1980]: 880‑883).

No mechanism exists for mainstream science to rethink accepted ideas. Rather, everything works against dissent from contemporary theory. When it comes to HIV/AIDS, a simple thought-experiment will illustrate the point:

Try to imagine how Anthony Fauci, Robert Gallo, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention could possibly manage face-saving explanations for how and why HIV doesn’t really, after all, cause AIDS; how the Food and Drug Administration would find excuses for all its approvals of toxic antiretroviral drugs. Imagine the reactions of all the researchers who had avidly pursued mindless “research”, and all the science groupies and researchers who had defended wrong theory and maligned and persecuted the “denialists” who now turned out to have been right all along. Think about what would be said and done by the Gates Foundation and all the other charities and non-profits who had diligently worked to provide health care for people being made sick not by disease but by medication.

It seems to me simply inconceivable that “the scientific consensus” and its agents could ever retract about HIV/AIDS.

So the task of disproving HIV/AIDS theory is not a matter of offering contradictory facts, which have in any case been available in profusion for decades (The Case against HIV The task is first to persuade society that “science” can get it wrong, even and in particular on a matter that affects such huge numbers of people and huge expenditures by governments and by non-profits and charities.

Society as a whole needs to be disabused of mistaken beliefs about science, in other words. My old friend had it backwards: until unquestioned faith in science is replaced by sensible skepticism and a demand that evidence for claims be openly presented and defended against skeptics, evidence-based criticisms of HIV/AIDS theory will not gain even a foothold in the conventional wisdom, the popular media, the mainstream discourse.

On my other blog, I’ve just posted a detailed discussion of the salient points:

What has been so damaging is not so much sheer ignorance as beliefs that are wrong (Dangerous knowledge).

Wrong views about the history of science are rampant throughout society; especially how drastically different today’s science is from the idealized popular view of it — which, as I opined above, was actually not that unrealistic only about half-a-century ago (Dangerous knowledge II: Wrong knowledge about the history of science).

The popular belief is wrong, that science is infallible and made so by “the scientific method”. The fact is that the scientific consensus always defends itself vigorously even when it happens to be wrong (Dangerous knowledge III: Wrong knowledge about science).

There exists a vicious cycle: HIV/AIDS dissent (and dissent from any contemporary scientific consensus) is dismissed out of hand because science couldn’t possibly be wrong about so important a matter; but until it is realized that the scientific consensus on many contemporary issues is flawed, dissent in any given case will be dismissed out of hand, preventing the accumulation of the evidence that science nowadays is pervasively untrustworthy (Dangerous knowledge IV: The vicious cycle of wrong knowledge).


Posted in Alternative AIDS treatments, antiretroviral drugs, experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism, scientific literacy, uncritical media | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

President Trump and HIV/AIDS

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/12/30

AIDS Rethinkers glimpsed a momentary ray of hope at the news that President Trump had fired the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS; could it be that government policies on AIDS might become evidence-based?

I suppose that is not entirely impossible, but this presidential action is no indication of it. One possible reason for the firing is simply that a new administration chooses new sets of advisers; and Trump has shown that he wants to undo everything the previous administration had done.

Another possible reason is that 6 months earlier, half-a-dozen members of the Council had resigned in protest, stating that
“The Trump Administration has no strategy to address the on-going HIV/AIDS epidemic, seeks zero input from experts to formulate HIV policy, and — most concerning — pushes legislation that will harm people living with HIV and halt or reverse important gains made in the fight against this disease …
the final straw for us — more like a two-by-four than a straw — is President Trump’s handling of health care reform”.
It is well known that Trump is enraged over any criticism, and those statements alone, made publicly in Newsweek, would be enough to goad him to “clean out” that whole Council.

Further, it is also known that Trump is largely ignorant of details on any topic, so what happened re HIV/AIDS may reflect only the attitude of some aide in the White House who is perhaps actually opinionated about HIV/AIDS or is just following the current extremist wing of the Republicans to dismantle as much as possible of all government activities.

In any case, any genuine turning from present policies and actions about HIV/AIDS would require that the National Institutes of Health replace Anthony Fauci and make a wholesale change in the AIDS division of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Such a move would be opposed by all the interests vested in present-day HIV/AIDS policies — all the bureaucratic niches involved, and most notably the drug companies, which presently are in effective control of Congress on all health-related matters. There is no actual sign in practice of any significant change in continuing policy about HIV/AIDS:

“Federal funding for HIV has increased significantly over the course of the epidemic, rising from just a few hundred thousand in FY 1982 to more than $32 billion in FY 2017”; the Trump budget request for FY 2018 has an estimated $32.0 billion for combined domestic and global HIV efforts. If enacted by Congress, it would mark a decrease in funding for HIV of $834 million, or 2.5% … compared to current levels ($32.9 billion). Most of this decline would be in the global portfolio (a $1.2 billion or 18% decline), although domestic discretionary programs would decline by $789 million or 10%; mandatory funding would continue to increase” (U.S. Federal Funding for HIV/AIDS: Trends Over Time, 9 November 2017.

Above all, the sad and bitter fact is that truth-seeking does not have a political constituency, be it about HIV, AIDS, or anything else.


Posted in Funds for HIV/AIDS | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Anti-HIV drugs kill the immune system

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/12/18

Anti-retroviral drugs are toxic in a number of ways, see The Case against HIV, section 5.3.

The specific reported toxicities include the killing of T-cells (section, which is supposed to be what “HIV” does. A new addition to this section is the report that integrase inhibitors also contribute to loss of T-cells:

R. Prasad, “IISc: HIV drug elvitegravir lowers the efficiency of immune system”Hindu Times, 16 December

The research article is Nishana et al., “HIV integrase inhibitor, Elvitegravir, impairs RAG functions and inhibits V(D)J recombination”, Cell Death & Disease, 8 (2017) :e2852. doi: 10.1038/cddis.2017.237; it is open access.

Abstract (PMID: 28569776)
Integrase inhibitors are a class of antiretroviral drugs used for the treatment of AIDS that target HIV integrase, an enzyme responsible for integration of viral cDNA into host genome. RAG1, a critical enzyme involved in V(D)J recombination exhibits structural similarity to HIV integrase. We find that two integrase inhibitors, Raltegravir and Elvitegravir, interfered with the physiological functions of RAGs such as binding, cleavage and hairpin formation at the recombination signal sequence (RSS), though the effect of Raltegravir was limited. Circular dichroism studies demonstrated a distinct change in the secondary structure of RAG1 central domain (RAG1 shares DDE motif amino acids with integrases), and when incubated with Elvitegravir, an equilibrium dissociation constant (Kd) of 32.53±2.9 μM was determined by Biolayer interferometry, leading to inhibition of its binding to DNA. Besides, using extrachromosomal assays, we show that Elvitegravir inhibited both coding and signal joint formation in pre-B cells. Importantly, treatment with Elvitegravir resulted in significant reduction of mature B lymphocytes in 70% of mice studied. Thus, our study suggests a potential risk associated with the use of Elvitegravir as an antiretroviral drug, considering the evolutionary and structural similarities between HIV integrase and RAGs.


This is just one illustration of the much-neglected fact that prescription drugs, so often advertised as “specific” to treatment of a disease, may do all sorts of other things as well. Chemicals, molecules, simply do what corresponds to their chemical structure, they don’t discriminate according to what we would like them to do. There are no “side” effects, there are just effects, even though the pharmaceutical industry tries to obfuscate that. Millions of people are being fed statins, for example, to lower their blood-cholesterol levels without being told that statins also interfere with coenzyme Q10 which the body makes and uses in all energy-related reactions; which is why a “side” effect of statins is muscle weakness.


Posted in antiretroviral drugs, HIV absurdities | Tagged: , | 11 Comments »

HPV vaccination: a thalidomide-type scandal

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/09/17

I’ve posted a number of times about the lack of proof that HPV causes cervical cancer and that the anti-HPV vaccines are being touted widely by officialdom as well as manufacturers even though the vaccines have been associated with an unusually high number of adverse reactions, some of them very severe, literally disabling.

Long-time medical journalist and producer of award-winning documentaries, Joan Shenton, has just made available the first of a projected trilogy, Sacrificial Virgins, about the dangers of anti-HPV vaccines:

The website, WHAT DOCTORS WON’T TELL YOU, comments in this way: “HPV vaccine ‘a second thalidomide scandal’, says new YouTube documentary”


Posted in uncritical media, vaccines | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

How to support Rethinking AIDS?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/08/23

The fact is that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS (or any other illness): no proof has ever been published that HIV causes AIDS, and the evidence against the idea is copious, see The Case against HIV. Yet it seems as though all the official sources and all the media are completely convinced that this mistaken notion is correct. How to change that?

A couple of dozen books have been published, and articles, even a few in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, but they have not dented the conventional wisdom. Rethinking AIDS (RA) is an organized attempt to bring awareness of the facts. The crucial and fundamental point is that the facts by themselves change no minds; one needs to give people a reason to question the official stance, and even before that one needs to spread the word that there exist informed and competent people who offer strong reasons for doubting the conventional wisdom. The task is one of public relations, not of science.

So Rethinking AIDS needs more visibility. Word of mouth is good, and it is worth recruiting one individual at a time — and indeed some significant number of people have been helped greatly when they chanced on RA or one of its members: HIV+ people (and their friends or relatives) who have been rescued from toxic medication or from deadly anxiety or harm from an unenlightened legal system. Much more is needed, though, more publicity; and one way toward that is by means of a public conference.

RA did indeed hold a conference in 2009 in Oakland, CA. Some details including the program can be seen at, and videos of the talks are available at the yellow buttons for “Streaming” do not work, but the red buttons do, they download a .mov file playable on many media players (download takes just a few minutes for each talk with my fast broadband connection through my cable company ISP). I had found the Oakland conference an extraordinary experience, see The Family of Rethinking AIDS, which gives some sense of the benefits such an occasion can bring. Another wonderful experience was a conference in Vienna the following year.

Why nothing similar since then?
Because a conference requires two things: Workers and funds. Absolutely essential are one or more people willing and able to invest the enormous time and effort needed to organize: an appropriate venue including accommodation possibilities and audio and video facilities; inviting of speakers, screening of solicited and unsolicited potential talks; publicity; but above all there is needed money. Nothing can be done about a venue or about speakers without guaranteed funds to cover the basic expenditures, for example hotels require a guarantee before being willing to reserve a group of rooms and conference facilities.

RA has the willing and able people, but it needs the funds. We have talked about the desirability of another conference for years, and now our President, David Crowe, has come across a possible way to raise the needed money: crowd-sourcing, an approach that has shown its possibilities in raising funds for a variety of research projects that were not able to find support through official avenues. Please have a look at, please consider adding your material support, and please tell every potential contributor about this initiative.

Posted in Alternative AIDS treatments, Funds for HIV/AIDS, HIV does not cause AIDS, uncritical media | Tagged: | 5 Comments »