HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/01/17

It seems astonishing that hordes of virologists, immunologists, and other biological scientists should be wrong about HIV/AIDS. It is even more astonishing that HIV/AIDS researchers do experiments without caring whether the substances they are working with are pure.

Etienne de Harven, pioneer in the electron microscopy of viruses and Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto, discussed in his address to the European Parliament [HIV HAS NEVER BEEN ISOLATED FROM AIDS PATIENTS, 15 January 2008] the failure of HIV/AIDS researchers to purify what they call “viral isolates of HIV”. Electron microscopy revealed that these “viral isolates” are motley mixtures of bits and pieces of various shapes and sizes; see “Cell membrane vesicles are a major contaminant of gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1 preparations” (Gluschankof et al., Virology 230 [1997] 125–33); “Microvesicles are a source of contaminating cellular proteins found in purified HIV-1 preparations” (Bess et al., Virology 230 [1997] 134–44).

Phyllis Pease, emeritus in medical microbiology from the University of Birmingham, discusses in some detail the fact that “supposedly pure HIV as prepared by standard techniques for the isolation of retroviruses employed since 1970 [has been] without the benefit of essential electron microscopy controls” (p. 128, “AIDS, Cancer and Arthritis”, ISBN 0-9550567-0-5; see comprehensive review by Neville Hodgkinson at

“Viral isolates” of “HIV” are whatever happens to be in the band of density 1.16, when a source thought to contain “HIV” is ultracentrifuged in a sugar gradient. Below is a tracing of electron micrographs published by Bess et al.; for easier identification, some of the microvesicles are colored green, some of the supposed virions are in blue, and some of the motley debris is in red. The lower micrograph is of a more highly purified preparation than the upper (see Pease, p. 129), yet still shows the presence of a variety of contaminants.


Not only are these mixtures of all sorts of things: when Pease measured the purported retrovirus particles (see p. 131 in her book), she found that their sizes spanned a wide range (70-225 nanometers). Purification had increased the proportion of virus-like particles, but clearly they are not all the same, as virions of a given species would be.

The astonishing, well-nigh incredible yet inescapable conclusion is this:
The “HIV” that researchers work with is a motley mixture of various kinds of intracellular particles (vesicles) and bits of cellular debris, in which there may or may not be present some particles of a putative human immunodeficiency retrovirus, and possibly other viruses as well

This remarkable circumstance explains immediately several peculiar characteristics supposedly unique to HIV and that have made it so intractable a thing to deal with:
— No two HIV isolates are exactly the same. “Within a single HIV-1 infected human host, HIV-1 population represents a complex mixture, or swarm, of mutant virus variants, in which all viruses are genetically related yet virtually every virus is unique” (Lukashov et al., “The genetic diversity of HIV-1 and its implications for vaccine development” in AIDS Vaccine Research, ed. Wong-Staal & Gallo, chapter 3, at p. 93).
Of course! Every time researchers make a preparation of “HIV”, they are working with a different and possibly unique mixture.
— HIV is said to mutate at a rate far exceeding anything observed with other biological entities.
Not at all. Every time researchers make a preparation of “HIV”, they are working with a different and possibly unique mixture.
— Every attempt at preparing a vaccine against HIV has failed totally.
Naturally. One can’t vaccinate against motley mixtures of variable composition.

How do HIV researchers respond to the charge that their “viral isolates” are not pure HIV?

Whenever possible—which is most of the time—they simply ignore it, even since the cited articles, published in 1997. However, ignoring is not feasible if one is on the witness stand in a court of law, as Robert Gallo was (via telecommunication) at the Parenzee trial in South Australia. Here are extracts from the transcript of his testimony, which is available in full at

Once we could mass-produce this virus, that’s purification. If you have a tonne of something and you contaminate it by a drop of water, didn’t you purify it? It’s the ratio of cell protein to viral protein. Sucrose gradient gives you a little bit of help but you could do that five times and it’s not going to purify as much as we did by mass-producing it. To use the extreme hyperbole, if you have a tonne of some something and a drop of water, you’ve purified it. That’s what we did. (Emphasis added; p. 1278, lines 1–9):
. . .
We succeeded in putting six of the 48 isolates into permanent culture, meaning in a cell line, in a leukaemic cell line that, itself, doesn’t have virus particles, and the virus comes out in great quantity and forever, thus making purification already accomplished. But, of course, we also use banded virus by sucrose gradient which they make a case out of we never did. You don’t publish that. Of course we did, but it isn’t needed and wouldn’t be needed if you could mass-purify it. But, for other purposes, we did it. (Emphases added; p. 1278, lines 25–35).”

This is no inadvertent mis-statement, Gallo repeats it (Emphases added; pp. 1281, lines 21–37):

“people use great quantities of mass-produced virus which by itself is purified virus. You are not being told that either because they don’t understand it or they don’t know; I don’t know. It has gone through a far greater purification than any banding can produce. The blood test that became available to people who knew how to do it came from mass-produced virus, originally from in Frederick, Maryland. The genes now have been cloned. We started in publications in 1984 throughout 1985 which showed that each of the proteins you pick up with Western blot is coded by one of the genes of HIV or another. Therefore we know those proteins come from HIV and, when a patient’s serum reacts with them, we know that patient, untreated, will almost always get AIDS. You can’t get science any better or anything more definitive.”


Most scientists, I dare say most thinking people, would be astonished at Gallo’s assertion that if you have a large enough amount of something then it doesn’t matter what else is present. Perhaps he was aware of that when he made the disingenuous comment about “a drop of water” not being a contaminant, when the actual contaminants are an unholy mélange of things. Yet even a drop of water can ruin an experiment if that drop contains the tiniest bit of the wrong sort of substance.

Solid-state physicists had observed in the mid-1930s the phenomenon that led—but only 3 decades later—to the transistor revolution in electronics. During those 3 decades, the phenomenon could not be reproduced—because of the unknown and therefore uncontrollable presence of varying traces of impurities in amounts too small to be detected by then-available methods.

Much of my own work in electrochemistry had to do with a method known as polarography. Its discovery stemmed from a strange phenomenon whose very existence depended on the presence of impurities in amounts too small to be detected by any then-available means, something realized only some 5 decades (Bauer, “Streaming maxima in polarography”, Electroanalytical Chemistry, 8 [1975] 169-279). The sensitivity to impurities was so great in large part because polarography depends on reactions at surfaces. The tiniest amounts of impurities in a solution may accumulate at surfaces to produce tangible effects. Many processes that depend on catalysis are surface reactions. The ubiquitous enzyme reactions in biological systems are essentially catalytic surface phenomena: the reacting substance has to fit precisely onto the surface of the enzyme. Contaminants in biological systems can ruin experiments and vitiate entirely any claimed results.

It beggars belief that a scientist would ignore the relevance of possible impurities in biological research or attempt to down-play the possible significance of impurities.


  1. Taras Manolov said

    Dear Henry,

    Concerning purity of HIV preparation — it is a case when a drop of water per ton of virus is certainly not a contaminant, because it is not what matters. A contaminant in the case of a virus preparation would be e.g. another virus, which is able to infect the same cell cultures as HIV can and in numbers that are sufficient for infection. It is impossible (or at least very impractical) to look for an unknown contaminant. If no contamination is reasonably suspected and as long as no contamination is proven, a preparation of virus may be deemed pure, at least for practical matters. It is no strange thing for biologist to handle solutions or suspensions of . . . whatever (antibodies, enzymes, viruses, bacteria) where “active” ingredient is basically more resembling contaminant, if e.g. judging by its share of, say, total protein. This is the nature of those experiments — the interactions tested are so specific that the substance/virus of question can be diluted so weakly that even specific contaminant would not matter, if it is truly a drop per ton. I hope I made sense..

    • Adam Cassidy said

      What Gallo said is snake oil salesman talk. Mass-produced virus is ‘pure’?!?!

      You have a cell-line cranking out viral particles (‘HIV’) many, many times smaller than themselves, so how does one collect those particles? The mixture has to be filtered or you’ll have the virus producing T-cells in in your culture along with ‘virus’.

      As Prof. De Harven describes elsewhere on this site, this is most likely by continuous-flow centrifuge — banded by sucrose gradient, the same method that Gallo openly agrees is inadequate.

      I am nauseated by these people — the pictures and info on this site are more smoking gun evidence that this is not only an outright fabrication, with the prescribing of cell-terminating drugs like AZT for life, based on wholly fraudulent science, it is mass murder.

      • Adam Cassidy said

        Also, I’m not 100% sure that continuous flow centrifuge represents being banded by sucrose density, but they have to filter it somehow, and thus anything else of the same size or smaller than ‘HIV’ will be present.

        In any case, it’s all absurd, arguing this liar’s theories. He needs to be exposed and publicly shamed once and for all.

  2. Henry Bauer said


    It’s not a matter of tons of virus and drops of water. It’s an unknown number of things in what is definitely a mixture, as shown by published electron micrographs. There’s never been an attested pure preparation of virus isolated from an “infected” person, so there’s no valid test of how specific the “HIV tests” are — but the empirical data that positive HIV-tests have eben observed with a wide variety of conditions like vaccinations, showing that the tests are quire non-specific.

    What you say makes sense, but it doesn’t apply to this case.

  3. Taras Manolov said

    But, Henry, as much as I understand this issue the source of virus for developing the detection assays (PCR, serology) was never a patient but a cell culture (originally, of course, virus comes from a patient, but cell cluture-based raising of virus is in effect purification of it, provided the virus is specific for that particular cell line). What R.Gallo calls “mass produced virus” is a cell line-produced (or purified, for that matter) HIV, if I’m getting it right.

    Concerning specificity of such tests; I understand that based on those tests we have information that presence of HIV means (according to certain timeframe) very high probability of developing of AIDS. If there is no valid suspicion that e.g. anti-HIV antibody detects something else then HIV or does not detect HIV at all then it is OK to use.

  4. Henry Bauer said


    Exactly. The “virus” was produced by transforming the cells supposedly killed by “HIV” into an immortal “line” and culturing them with all sorts of stuff. What’s produced may have no relation to a virus that might exist in humans from which those cells were taken. And the mixture in which this culturing took place contains all sorts of things.

    As to relation to getting AIDS, my book assembles data shaowing that there was no correlation between HIV+ and AIDS geographically or in several other ways: relative impact on men and women, relative impact on blacks and whites

  5. lukas said

    Dear prof.Bauer,
    I’m arguing with some people on the net about the fact that hiv is never been correct purified and that all EM show contamination of microvescicle and cellular debris.According to the perth group and Prof. De Harven having pure hiv is of the utmost importance.This people claim the following picture is a proof of EM picture pure hiv: then the discussion i’m involved is at the following addresses: and what is your opinion about these pics.Thank you very much for any help you could give me

    • Henry Bauer said


      What is the provenance of the material in the photograph? How was it obtained or prepared? Was it synthesized as in

      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.

      where a “molecular clone” of “HIV” was made? And looked like a retrovirus under EM, but self-destructed in hours.

      I will wager that this EM did NOT come from serum from an HIV+ person after ultracentrifuging and taking an EM of the infamous 1.16 density layer

      • lukas said

        My replier now states that:Retroscriptease activity even if not typical of retroviruses only,(prof Baltimore says also that)is completely different in virus and in cells.He calls the first cellular telomerase,the second retrov. RT,saying that the “two enzymes use different primers”.He adds that proteins are different also and there are no HIV gene sequences in the human genome.Now i’m not a biologist but only a person familiar with perth groups studies and other dissid. papers.They state that in a mixture as the “alleged purified” is,there’s no way to distinguish proteins “.A brick is a brick there is no way to say which house it belongs.Perth group documents” and genome is not correctly sequenced.They imply that without rigorous purification is not possible to attribuite any quality to anything.It is possible to charachterize hiv starting by proteins,genome,retroviral activity with no absolute pure and not partial( as gallo-mont claim-mont sayd in “emperor new virus” regard not absolute pure hiv: “for us is not important but for others it is )purification conducted?

      • Henry Bauer said

        It’s easy to get bogged down in technicalities. But no technicality can overcome the fact — acknowledged by Gallo and Montagnier — that “isolates” of “HIV” are not pure virions. Without absolute purity, it’s impossible to be sure what is responsible for observed reactions.
        Gallo’s statement that his technique produces so much virus that purification becomes unnecessary is utterly absurd. The well-known phenomenon of catalysis is that a single thing can cause enormous amounts of product since the catalyst itself is not changed in the reaction, it just facilitates the reaction. In biological systems, that’s what enzymes do, they are biological catalysts. Unless you have absolute purity, you cannot know whether a given reaction comes from “HIV” or from something else present in tiny amount.

  6. lukas said

    dear Prof.Bauer
    at the following address: it is described a detailed procedure to purify and isolate the virus hiv.I will be happy if u can show me the weak points in this procedure as i’m confident it is not the gold standard.
    Thank you very much

    • Henry Bauer said

      I don’t see anything here about purifying, and note that this is material created in a culture, not “HIV” isolated and purified direct from a human being.

  7. lukas said

    Prof Bauer,
    to my observations about the catalyst process,which goes wrong if putative hiv particles are not separated from cellular debris my replier answers:”why putative HIV particles, DNA and RNA are found only in HIV-infected cells and not in non-infected cells?which genes are coding for the proteins in the putative particles? (wheter artifacts of cell culture or not!!).
    I heard from Perth group that isolation includes also the demonstration that viral particles are infectious and replicate,but don’t know if that has been done or about such a process…How can i respond to my replier?

    • Henry Bauer said

      The stuff is not found only in “HIV-infected” cells.
      How does anyone know what genes or proteins go with “HIV” in the first place? EVERYTHING supposedly known about “HIV” comes from mixtures, since pure virions have never been isolated from HIV+ people or from AIDS patients.
      Normal components of human cells can generate everything that is said to be “HIV”-associated:

      “Human Endogenous Retroviruses and AIDS Research: Confusion, Consensus, or Science?”

      Tell your person to read “The case against HIV”, including the pdf with all the reasons why HIV is not the cause of AIDS. THe >800 references cited there can answer all his questions.

  8. lukas said

    Dear prof.Bauer recently i stumbled upon the different views of hiv isolation in the dissidents community,an argument that i suppose is rather controversial.So i know the views are the following;1 hiv is harmeless(Duesberg),2 hiv might not exist as there are no evidence(perth group,lanka).I feel wonder to know there is struggle on such an argument!I’ve read that for Duisberg cloning is enough to declare its existence and i add some of his lines:”the high standards of virus isolation… may be relevant for crystallographers or chemists… but are not relevant for functional isolation”( this “functional isolation” talks also prof.Ruggiero at this link in which after the interviewer asked him if hiv exists he answers that there are two parallel levels of isolation(he says:it depends if you like to discuss of pure science or medicine…continuing that the no gold standard of purification even if not obtained was not so relevant as at that time medicine was eager to apply other protocols etc…)What i ask is:is that possible that science does not agree on isolation process?It is not of irrelevant importance at all,as foor exemple in trials,,when it’s time to defend hiv pos one has to choose one of these interpretation(it doesn’t exist or harmless)and a confusion may lead to a negative result.

    Thank you

    • Henry Bauer said

      You say, “is that possible that science does not agree” — but “science” is not an individual who can say anything. As you’ve described, scientists disagree. So if you want to know what is most believable, you have to look into the evidence for yourself, and you have to examine what the disagreeing scientists say, and try to decide who is more believable.

      In practice, in my opinion it makes no difference whether “HIV” exists and is harmless or whether it doesn’t exist: in either case, you would definitely not subject anybody to toxic antiretroviral drugs.

      Furthermore, the evidence is quite clear that “HIV” tests do not definitively detect “HIV” even if it exists: HIV tests are not HIV tests, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 15 (#1, 2010) 5-9

      The question of whether or not “HIV” exists is certainly of interest, but in my opinion it is of intellectual and not practical interest. The same policies should prevail if “HIV” exists and is harmless or if it does not exist. On my blog I have also shown that the death rate of “HIV+” people or “People with AIDS” is independent of age, which means that those conditions are not fatal illness.

  9. Benedetto said

    Dear Prof Bauer,

    a little question.. since the virus has never been properly purificated, how could and can the producers of the hiv antibody tests possibly establish their sensitivity and specificity??

    (My guess would be.. they have been using the cell coltures ever since to validate them? I mean when a person tests positive then we are quite sure he/she has also a “culturable virus”.. Am I wrong?)


    • Henry Bauer said

      I honestly don’t know how they come up with sensitivity and specificity numbers, sorry. Since none of the tests are validated and approved for detecting “HIV”, those numbers cannot be taken as meaningful anyway.

      • Benedetto said

        thanx for your kind reply..

        actually, I have another little question, maybe a silly one, always concerning Hiv antibody tests.. I am afraid I have never fully understood what is being written in those tests’ disclaimers ever since, namely: “ present there is no recognised standard to establish the presence of hiv antibodies in the blood serum..”. Now my question is: what do they mean with “recognised standard”? What is supposed to be a “recognised standard” here? Maybe a standardized laboratory procedure or algorithm? At first, I thought they were referring to the different criteria used worldwide for interpreting a WB, but, if I dont recall it wrong, that sentence is typical for the ELISA tests!

        thank you for helping me

      • Henry Bauer said

        Again, I really don’t know the origin of the acknowledgment that tests for HIV antibodies cannot be guaranteed to detect HIV antibodies. I would GUESS it is because actual HIV has never been isolated in pure form to serve as a gold standard for detecting HIV: Stanley H. Weiss & Elliot P. Cowan, “Laboratory detection of human retroviral infection”, chapter 8 in Gary P. Wormser (ed.). AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection. London etc.: Academic Press; 2004 (4th ed.).
        So if there is no way to be sure of detecting HIV itself, there cannot be any sure way to know what are HIV antibodies and what are other antibodies.
        Despite the never-contradicted Weiss & Cowan article, which is in an apparently authoritative work from a respected mainstream publisher, and in its 4th edition so presumably well regarded, media and pundits and proponents of HIV/AIDS continue to talk about “isolates” of HIV—MANY “isolates” are available from official repositories, there have to be many because the are all different! None of them contain purely and only HIV virions, they are all mixtures of whatever comes from cultures in a centrifuged layer of particular density.

  10. Dr. Bauer, you mention EM in this article. Are you aware of any current research the rethinking groups or any dissidents are currently doing using the electron microscope and HIV? I have heard that Dr. Maniotis is working on something currently. Can you elaborate on this?

    • Henry Bauer said

      I’m not aware that any HIV/AIDS researchers have tried to verify their HIV “isolates” by electron microscopy. Rethinkers, of course, are unlikely to do it since they know that “HIV” has never been isolated and may not even exist.

      • Taj said

        Hello Henry,

        I just have one quick question, I am not sure if you will reply as it’s been quite some time on this forum. Given the fact that I completely agree with the lies that mainstream media has fed us when it comes to “HIV” and it’s effects..

        1. What do you think in relation to unprotected sex, could cause a positive HIV reading?

        2. Also, more important of a question, do you support the use of natural herbs such as moringa, tumeric, olive leaf extract, black seed, etc etc that are supposed to help with “HIV” and the immune system in order to test negative (for argument sake – just to not be labeled “positive”). Do you think taking such things on a regular basis could eventually cause an HIV positive person to test negative again?

      • Henry Bauer said

        Any number of things can lead to a HIV+ test, see The Case against HIV

        There is no single authoritative source of information about herbs and natural supplements. For each one, you need to do research into what has been published. I’m skeptical about all the mainstream and all the alternative-medical sources, and it takes me a long time to make up my mind about any particular substance. The most important thing is to look for evidence of HARM. If there is no report ever of harm, then there is no reason not to try it. And some things work for some people and not for others, so your own experience is what counts.

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