HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

DISSENTING FROM HIV/AIDS THEORY

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2007/12/08

A number of defenders of the view that HIV causes AIDS have been strident and even vicious in their attacks on those who disagree with them. I was very pleased that the Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons has published my essay about that, “Questioning HIV/AIDS: Morally Reprehensible or Scientifically Warranted?”, and I’m grateful for the peer-review and editorial suggestions that helped me improve the article.

19 Responses to “DISSENTING FROM HIV/AIDS THEORY”

  1. Tony said

    What a coup! Congratulations.

  2. Sepp said

    Great article,

    thank you!

  3. Mountain Man said

    Dr. Bauer,

    I really enjoyed your article. Something went gravely wrong with the retroviral hypothesis of AIDS long ago. I think a small segment of powerful retrovirologists, striving for clinical relevance, gambled on this little bug and lost big. They hoped they’d find a vaccine, but failed. They then compounded the problem with toxic AZT.

    You have done yeoman’s work. Keep speaking and writing.

  4. Rethinkit said

    Dr. Bauer,

    I greatly enjoyed your article. I especially like to see it in print that there is no established definition of how HIV could kill T-cells.

    You also presented in-depth information regarding the so-called “cocktails”.

    Thanks!

  5. heja said

    Fantastic article–short, to the point and biting through a smart and logical use of orthodoxy’s own arguments!!

    Well done–this is how opinions of the public can be changed!

    A must read for everyone and a perfect ‘brief’ to give to anyone who is still blinded by the media line!

  6. Cyril Sader said

    Congratulations!

  7. Dey said

    Dr.Bauer, your article is great.

    I’d like to ask you what do you think of virologist Dr.Stefan Lanka’s views on the existence of HIV:
    http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/slartefact.htm

    Lanka, as virologist, isolated and characterized a virus as you may read in this scientific paper published in the scientific journal Virology:
    http://www.klein-klein-aktion.de/pdf/CoatProtein.pdf

    He says there is not scientific proof (e.g. a scientific publication of virus isolating) of HIV and other disease-causing virus:
    http://rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/060301_lanka_no_diseasecausing_viruses.html

    Most of his arguments are technical. He doesn’t say that AIDS or other diseases (like polio, hepatitis, etc) don’t exist. He say there is not scientific proof of the virus causing these diseases. In fact, in Germany, he’s challenged oficial health authorities to provide scientific evidence of virus isolating.

    Evidently, Lanka’s views are very controversial and seems very extreme. Do you think is there any scientific truth on Lanka’s assertions?

    Thanks!

  8. hhbauer said

    Dey: I don’t have the background in virology to make technically grounded judgments about what you ask.

    However, as to the possible existence of HIV, I think the evidence is rather clear: it has never been PROVEN to exist because actual whole infectious particles of it have never been isolated IN PURE FORM from “HIV-infected” people. The assurance of purity requires electron micrographs. A prize was offered in 2002 for such photos of HIV and the prize has not been claimed: The Huw Christie Memorial Prize—$100,000 Reward for ‘HIV’—offered by Alexander Russell, 19th July 2002 (http://www.altheal.org/isolation/prize.htm, accessed 14 December 2007). The microbiologist Phyllis Pease has exposed in detail the lack of evidence for isolation of HIV, in her book AIDS, CANCER AND ARTHRITIS—A NEW PERSPECTIVE (http://www.phyllis-evelyn-pease.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1)—see lengthy review by Neville Hodgkinson posted at http://aras.ab.ca/index.php. The Perth Group (http://www.theperthgroup.com/) have written extensively about the lack of evidence of isolation of HIV particles.

    The evidence, collected and analyzed in my book (http://www.failingsofhivaidstheory.homestead.com/), is unequivocal, that whatever HIV tests may detect, it is not an infectious agent. That doesn’t speak directly to the question of whether a human immunedeficiency virus exists, but it does throw large doubt on it.

    The “Coat Protein” paper addresses a rather specific matter that I don’t think is relevant to this main question.

    The claim that there are no disease-causing viruses at all seems to me outlandish. What caused polio, and how did vaccination bring an end to it? Are there no influenza viruses? If so, what killed all those people around the time of World War I? Are there not well known plant viruses like tobacco mosaic virus that have even been prepared in crystalline pure form?

    Peter Duesberg (http://www.duesberg.com/) makes a powerful case that RETROviruses cannot cause the fatal sort of illness that “AIDS” is said to be, but Lanka’s claim seems to include that DNA viruses are not supposed to exist.

    I hope this is not too evasive an answer.

  9. Jo said

    Hello Dr. Bauer, you asked

    >> What caused polio, and how did vaccination bring an end to it?

    Maybe an answer is here: http://www.geocities.com/harpub/overview.htm

    For the second part of the question, consider this:

    Shortly after vaccination against Polio had been introduced in the USA, in some states epidemics broke out. In the three following years after introduction of the vaccination, the definition for a Polio epidemic was therefore changed. It would not have been easy to admit that despite increased vaccination, more people got sick.
    Up to this point, 20 cases in 100,000 inhabitants were called an epidemic. Then, 35 in 100,000 inhabitants had to be reported. The definition of Polio was adapted to the new circumstances also: Paralyses which persisted for 24 hours had inaugurated Polio statistics. Later, paralyses had to persist two months in order to be recognized as Polio. [No wonder the Polio cases massively decreased in the statistics. – Added by me]
    The remaining cases of Polio were then diagnosed almost exclusively as Meningitis.

    (Translation from a German text excerpt from Anita Petek-Dimmer, published in AEGIS Impuls Nr.13, referring to:
    Biskind M et al, American Journal of Psychotherapie (1949), p.261
    Hayes W., Laws E., Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, Academic Press Inc, San Diego 1991, 3 volumes)

    Best regards,
    Jo

  10. hhbauer said

    You suggest that an answer to how polio vaccination ended the epidemic may be at http://www.geocities.com/harpub/overview.htm

    The data (graphs) given there begin in 1940, but polio was around much before that.

    As to the change from 20 to 35 per 100,000, we would need to look into the dates and compare them with the introduction of the vaccines. As I recall, the first (inactivated, Salk) vaccine did cause polio in a small number of cases, and it was superseded by the Sabin live attenuated vaccine.

  11. Jo said

    Right. Polio began much earlier, in the 1880’s. This graph gives a better overview:

    The Polio decrease may have had several reasons, or only one, so the questions are:
    Did Polio decrease (mainly between 1952(!) and 1964) because
    – the Salk (1954) and later the Sabin vaccine helped to do that?
    – the DDT production began phase-out in 1953/54?
    – the new prerequisites for cases inaugurating Polio statistics helped to do so? (Paralyses for 2 months instead of 24 hours, after the Salk vaccine had been introduced)
    – the change in diagnosis sugarcoated the statistics? (Meningitis instead of Polio)

    The change from 20 to 35 per 100,000 can be ignored because it was just an indicator for the definition of an “epidemic” and did not influence the number of the reported cases.

    What do you think?

    Best regards,
    Jo

  12. hhbauer said

    That extended graph http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/pol_all.jpg is certainly interesting, and raises more questions:

    Why did the early 1980s peak fall back again?

    Is there information about geographic correlations between DDT use and polio incidence? Was DDT widely used in Sweden in the 1880s?

    Around WWI, is the NYC outbreak supposed to be from pollution from factories or from widespread use around the city?

    By the way, have you looked into the claim that mad-cow disease stems from organophosphate use? A British farmer has been pushing that view for quite a long time: http://madcow.pamrotella.com/

  13. MacDonald said

    Jo,

    The correlations between chemical pollutants, environment, living conditions, vaccines, medical drugs and epidemic outbreaks are so easily found that there is seldom need for a viral agent to explain them.

    But the detective work is so great for unpaid volunteers like ourselves that it is probably best to shoot at one virus at a time. Bringing down HIV is enough to make fall many things that cannot stand. Or in the words of the truly wise:

    “From one thing, know ten thousand things” – Musashi

    “If HIV does not exist, then neither did smallpox virus (variola), nor does polio virus, tobacco mosaic virus in plants, etc. etc.” – Robin Weiss.

  14. Dey said

    Hello Dr.Bauer,

    Thanks for your answers. I’ll buy your book, I’ve read excellent reviews of it.

    I don’t have any technical knowledge in biology or medicine, so my following comments are only my “speculations” based on my reading on the web and books.

    Lanka’s arguments regarding most DNA viruses seems very extreme. However, his arguments for rejecting these viruses are THE SAME as for rejecting HIV: there is no scientific proof of them!

    You can read an English translation (not very good) of an article by Lanka regarding the pictures of “isolated” virus (e.g. polio, etc.) here:
    http://www.neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm

    Lanka’s 2005 interview on bird flu can be read at:
    http://www.whale.to/b/lanka.html

    As I’ve said, it seems to me that Lanka’s line of reasoning is clear and specific: there is no scientific evidence for viruses causing diseases. No pictures of isolated viral particles, etc.

    You can read an example of Lanka’s activities in Germany, asking the official health authorities to give the scientific evidence for viruses:
    http://www.klein-klein-aktion.de/contents/Questions/questions.html

    As far as I know, the authorities never provided any scientific reference (e.g. the exact scientific publication) for virus isolation.

    Regarding Duesberg and his case for the existence of retrovirus (and HIV), Lanka has written the following: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/slreplypd.htm

    Lanka’s alternative explanation for the “supposed” viral diseases is to be found in Dr.Hamer’s research (Dr.Hamer is a controversial medical doctor in Germany). Most information about him:
    http://www.germannewmedicine.ca/documents/qanda.html

    I’ve found Hamer’s views on AIDS here:
    http://www.sidasante.com/therapi/view.htm

    Even if Hamer is wrong, Lanka’s line of reasoning about the existence of virus will be the same: there is no scientific proof of them.

    Thanks

  15. Jo said

    Dr. Bauer, good questions. Let’s see what we can find out.

    >> Why did the early 1980s peak fall back again?

    The ’80s peak is not Polio. It’s Post-Polio which is a syndrome that affects former Polio patients. There’s quite a wide range of symptoms and an even wider range of probable causes for this condition. The Polio virus is irrelevant to Post-Polio. So there’s no vaccination that could account for the decrease of cases in the late ’80s. What exactly caused this decrease in the graph, is irrelevant to our approach and the question: What caused Polio and what accounts for the decrease between 1952 and the early ’60s?
    It would certainly be interesting to know more about the coherence of DDT and Post-Polio also, but that’s an additional discussion, which can be resumed later on.

    >> Is there information about geographic correlations between DDT use and polio incidence? Was DDT widely used in Sweden in the 1880s?

    This will be hard to find out, especially regarding the early cases. There’s a comment on the graph sources: “(…) The very earliest numbers, from 1887 to about 1904, and the postpolio numbers, are interpolated from the general historical commentary regarding those periods (see bibliography on Homepage and NYC Health Commissioner Haden Emerson’s compilations). While the graph is not perfectly accurate, due to changing methods of diagnoses and record-keeping within the medical system, it does give a reliable overall picture of polio cases in terms of known literature and records.”

    So maybe some other agent was responsible for these cases, who knows? I don’t. But still, was it a virus or a poison? Hard to find out as the alleged Polios were “interpolated from the general historical commentary”. One could ask: Were these early cases been Polio at all or a symptomatically “Polio-like” form of meningitis? How could there have been a reliable Polio diagnosis in 1887?

    >> Around WWI, is the NYC outbreak supposed to be from pollution from factories or from widespread use around the city?

    I guess it’s hard to find out such details. If the result of an inquest was “widespread use around the city”, exactly here or there, the question where a widespread EXPOSURE could actually have taken place remained unanswered anyway. An apple treated with pesticides has no GPS inside.

    The similarity of the questions concerning Polio and AIDS is striking. Therefore I think it’s worth watching both with the same amount of skepticism.
    Now, here’s a little experiment we can make using some statements that Ralph R. Scobey, M.D., made in 1951. Just replace “Poliomyelitis” by “AIDS”:

    “Poliomyelitis is unique in that it is the only disease in the history of medicine in which a theory, and not an established fact as to its cause, has become incorporated into the public health law.”

    “Although poliomyelitis is legally a contagious disease… every attempt has failed conclusively to prove this mandatory requirement of the public health law… Hoyne points out… the startling revelation that the etiologic agent of the disease is still unknown…”

    “…when this disease was legally made a communicable disease… funds for poliomyelitis research were from then on designated for the investigation of the infectious theory only.”

    (Ralph R. Scobey, M.D., “Is The Public Health Law Responsible For The Poliomyelitis Mystery?” Archives of Pediatrics, Vol 68, p220 (May, 1951))

    >> By the way, have you looked into the claim that mad-cow disease stems from organophosphate use?
    I took a brief look on it – thanks for the link. I will examine it closely soon.

    @MacDonald:
    You wrote
    >> The correlations between chemical pollutants, environment, living conditions, vaccines, medical drugs and epidemic outbreaks are so easily found that there is seldom need for a viral agent to explain them.

    You’re right – although I partly disagree because it also works vice versa. Looking at AIDS, you can see that the poisoning parts, the big questions concerning diagnosis and the biggest question of all, “Is HIV causing AIDS?”, are being blanked out by orthodox physicians. Looking at Polio, it’s almost the same. Allegedly there’s no need for a non-viral agent to explain the disease.

    Best regards,
    Jo

  16. hhbauer said

    Clearly there’s a great deal to be looked into about polio, and I appreciate learning that, but I’m going to have to leave it to others to go further into it, I’m not able to keep up even with all the aspects of the HIV/AIDS business.

  17. MacDonald said

    “Allegedly there’s no need for a non-viral agent to explain the disease.”

    Right, Jo, but we’ve got two things on our side:

    1. The viral hypothesis was introduced at a late stage, chemical toxins have been with us forever.

    2. In the case of HIV, the disease-causing mechanism is still obscure. Scientists are in a very practical sense explaining an unknown with an unknown.

    This might interest you if you haven’t seen it already (I beg our host’s pardon for the length of the excerpt – what can I say, it’s from Dr. Maniotis…(-:)

    “1950 (September)†Ralph R. Scobey, M.D., president of the Poliomyelitis Research Institute. Inc. Syracuse, New York (Archives of Pediatrics, Sept. 1950) lists 170 diseases of polio-like symptoms and effects but with different names such as: “epidemic cholera, cholera morbus, spinal meningitis, spinal apoplexy, inhibitory palsy, intermittent fever, famine fever, worm fever, bilious remittent fever, ergotism, and others. There are also such common nutritional deficiency diseases as beriberi, scurvy, Asiatic plague, pellagra, prison edema, acidosis, and others. “No drugs, medicines or medical treatments have ever been able to cure any of these diseases and no germs have been isolated as the cause. But they all respond to fasting, cleansing, proper diet and improved circulation. The similarity of these diseases to polio is too obvious to go unnoticed. They are, in reality, all one disease with varying stages of intensity and different names. It is ridiculous to assume that polio is caused by a virus and the rest of them are caused by nutritional deficiency. Inasmuch as nerve cells react in much the same way to various poisons, further research will probably show that in these cases polio micro-organisms are not always present, but intoxication (poisoning) may be produced through faulty metabolism or by the absorption of poisons from without” (Ralph Scobey, 1950).”

  18. sadunkal said

    Just wanted to let you know that I just brought up this essay of yours in a discussion at Nature’s online network forums: http://network.nature.com/groups/humans_vs_pathogens/forum/topics/3279?page=1

    I wonder how they’ll react, might be interesting to keep an eye on since I sort of “pissed into their territory” so to speak. I hope they’ll remain calm and really begin to discuss it. I suspect that I might simply get banned though, since I even admitted that I’m not a scientist. Exciting… For me at least.

  19. Henry Bauer said

    Sadunkal:

    Let me know if a worthwhile discussion gets going!

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