HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2007/12/14

Here’s today’s little HIV nonsense:

“Semen boosts HIV transmission”, reported Nature News on 13 December. “Fibres may be more important than viral load in determining transmission rates. A component found in semen can enhance HIV transmission by as much as 100,000-fold, researchers have found. The results, if verified in a clinical setting, could identify a new way to help prevent the spread of the disease.”

And so on and so forth. “Over 80% of HIV infections are acquired through sexual intercourse, primarily via semen from HIV-positive men. . . . peptides clustered together into long fibres may be more important for HIV transmission than viral load.”

They don’t need to try verifying this “in a clinical setting”, because several dozen real-world investigations of the rate of sexual transmission of HIV have already been carried out over the years, in Africa, Haiti, and the United States. All have found probabilities of transmission on the order of 1 per 1000 acts of unprotected intercourse–in other words, negligible transmission via sexual intercourse; see peer-reviewed scientific publications cited in chapter 4, “HIV is not an infection”, in “The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory”.

This asserted new discovery about HIV in semen also contradicts the long-standing tenet of HIV/AIDS theory that viral load is the prime determinant of transmission probability. Soon after HIV had been anointed as cause of AIDS, alert observers had noticed that the average rate of sexual transmission is too low to produce epidemics of the extent of the apparent outbreaks of AIDS. It was suggested that while the average rate of transmission might be too low to support an epidemic spread, perhaps a burst of viral replication soon after a person was infected might make transmission during this initial period of infection more probable owing to a higher viral load (Anderson & May, Nature, 333 [1988] 514-9). Over the course of time and without the benefit of evidence, this guess has become accepted dogma. It entails certain corollaries about the sort of sexual behavior that is necessary for epidemic spread, corollaries that will be discussed in detail on some appropriate future occasion.

For the moment, as regards the claim that a component of semen may enhance transmission of HIV as much as 100,000 fold, note that without such a boost, the average transmission probability would only be 1 per 100,000,000, since with this boost it’s still only 1 per 1000. Consider also that if this component is needed to boost transmission up to the 1 per 1000 level, how could HIV ever be transmitted via infected needles that never came into contact with semen?


  1. Steven Burrall said

    One always wonders with a study like this what they are actually measuring. The article is at
    It looks to me like they were measuring binding of P24 to cell membranes (calling this HIV virion infection) and found one particular protein fraction from semen, the one that happened to be turbid because the proteins were polymerizing into something like amyloid, that enhanced the binding. It strikes me like spilling salt on a Kleenex and noting that it sticks to the part you just blew your nose on. I don’t see that they did any control using other sorts of turbid protein solutions, and wonder if any old turbid protein solution might similarly gum up the works?

  2. hhbauer said

    Important point, thank you.
    We should always keep in mind that it is proteins or bits of RNA or DNA supposedly characteristic of HIV that are experimented with, because actual HIV virions have never been isolated in pure form from HIV-positive people or from AIDS patients. Electron micrographs of “HIV isolates” show them to be MIXTURES of all sorts of particles and cell debris (Bess et al., Virology 230 [1997] 134–44; Gluschankof et al., Virology 230 [1997] 125–33).
    (On Science Guardian [“Moore bombs at the Globe”, July 4th, 2007], in a discussion about the existence of HIV and electron micrographs, Truthseeker cited an article with electron micrographs of SYNTHETIC (“cloned”) HIV particles, which the text of the article described as unstable, self-destructing in a matter of hours, and fewer than 1 in 10,000 of the particles even being infectious.)

  3. Benedetto said

    Dear Prof Bauer,
    since hiv is said to be sexually transmitted I have always thought that there must be thousand of studies in the scientific literature dealing with hiv and semen. Aren’t there? I have been reading dissidents blogs for a while, nonetheless, so far I have never came across this topic that for me should be of crucial importance .. but why is that?

    • Henry Bauer said

      I think I’ve seen occasional references to semen, but I find in my survey only reference #387—The Case against HIV
      The mainstream has no interest in such studies, I suppose, because they already “know” HIV is sexually transmitted.

  4. Benedetto said

    Dear Prof Bauer,
    sorry for the off topic, but I really did not know where to post these questions..
    Strolling around hiv related blogs, I often came across to sentences like this, I quote: “HIV-1, which is responsible for the AIDS pandemic, is a retrovirus closely related to a simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) that infects chimpanzees”. Now, my question is: Is this SI virus real? I mean.. Has it ever been purified or is it another “lab artifact” like hiv?
    And..what means that hiv is “closely related” to it? maybe they want us to believe that hiv is originated from it? by some fortuitous mutation? and, even so, what kind of proofs is there for this assumption?

    Thanks for helping me understand Prof, as usual

    • Henry Bauer said

      Sorry, I can’t help here. I haven’t tried to learn about SIV. Once I became convinced that HIV is not infectious and doesn’t cause AIDS, as proved by the epidemiology of “HIV” tests, I found it a waste of time to try to follow up all the unlikely things that the mainstream comes up with. Again, sorry!

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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