HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

CD4 counts don’t count — OFFICIAL!

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/02/14

For a very long time, the central belief in HIV/AIDS theory has been that “HIV” kills CD4 cells (albeit by a mechanism that still remains to be identified), thereby wrecking the immune system and allowing opportunistic infections to take over. Measurements of peripheral (in the blood) CD4 cells have been a mainstay in research and treatment. Voices raised to point out the error of this, those of  Heinrich Kremer or Juliane Sacher among others, have been studiously ignored. But now it’s become quite official:

“’In both studies, the volunteers who received IL-2 and antiretrovirals experienced notable, sustained increases in CD4+ T cell counts, as anticipated,’ notes NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. ‘Unfortunately, these increases did not translate into reduced risks of HIV-associated opportunistic diseases or death when compared with the risks in volunteers who were taking only antiretrovirals. Although further analyses may help us better understand these findings, the two studies clearly demonstrated that the use of IL-2 did not improve health outcomes for HIV-infected people.’”

That paragraph is from an official release by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), “IL-2 immunotherapy fails to benefit HIV-infected individuals already taking antiretrovirals”

Increased CD4 counts do not translate into better health outcomes
for people on HAART —
even though the aim of HAART is supposed to be lower viral load
that supposedly allows rebounding of CD4 counts

That could already have been inferred, of course, from the publication by Rodriguez et al., “Predictive value of plasma HIV RNA level on rate of CD4 T-cell decline in untreated HIV infection”, JAMA, 296 [2006] 1498-1506: the predictive value is NIL; viral load doesn’t predict CD4 decline in untreated patients; so why expect that it would do so in  HAART-treated patients? But these IL-2 trials had been running since 1999 and 2000 respectively, so why cut them short just because research has shown them to be superfluous or misguided? Or just because the experts who draw up NIH’s Treatment Guidelines have also been sure for some time that CD4, viral load, and patient health do not correlate with one another, they are independent of one another — that’s why the Treatment Guidelines have to distinguish among “virologic failure” (viral load doesn’t decrease under treatment), “immunologic failure” (CD4 counts don’t increase), and “clinical failure” (operation succeeds, viral load down and CD4 up, patient dies).

Mere facts, though, have never been particularly meaningful in HIV/AIDS research. Anything that clearly contradicts HIV/AIDS theory is not accepted as falsification, instead it’s taken as a mystery to be solved. More from the recent NIAID release:

“These are the findings of two large international clinical trials presented today at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) in Montreal. . . .
IL-2 is produced naturally in the body and plays an important role in regulating CD4+ T cell production and survival. As their CD4+ T cell levels drop, people infected with HIV become more vulnerable to AIDS-related opportunistic diseases and death. Earlier research established that giving synthetic IL-2 plus antiretroviral therapy to people with HIV infection boosts their CD4+ T cell counts more than does antiretroviral therapy alone, but it was unknown whether this boost translated into better health [emphasis added]”.

It’s asserted (highlighted sentence above) as though known with certainty that lower CD4 means worse prognosis; yet

“ESPRIT and SILCAAT were designed to test whether giving IL-2 to HIV-infected individuals already on antiretroviral therapy would keep them healthier longer than HIV-infected individuals taking only antiretrovirals.”

If the highlighted assertion above had been right, then these tests were not needed. If they were needed, then the assertion should not have been made.

These clinical trials themselves appear to have been sound; and they looked at CD4 counts in both ranges of interest — there have been long-standing questions about the optimum CD4 counts at which antiretroviral treatment might best begin:

“Together, the ESPRIT and SILCAAT studies involved more than 5,800 HIV-infected volunteers in 25 countries. Participants were assigned at random to receive either combination antiretroviral therapy alone or combination antiretrovirals plus injections of Proleukin (Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Basel, Switzerland), a synthetic form of IL-2, over several five-day cycles. To evaluate the effects of IL-2 treatment at different stages of HIV infection, the ESPRIT study enrolled people with early-stage infection (CD4+ T cell counts at or above 300 cells per cubic millimeter, or mm3), while the SILCAAT study enrolled volunteers with later-stage HIV infection (CD4+ T cell counts between 50 and 299 cells/ mm3).
It is unclear why increased CD4+ T cell counts did not translate into better health outcomes.”

What’s unclear? Increased CD4 doesn’t produce better prognoses. HIV/AIDS theory is wrong. But of course that’s unthinkable:

“James D. Neaton, . . .  principal investigator of the global clinical trials network that conducted ESPRIT, offers two possible explanations. ‘It could be that the types of CD4+ T cells induced by IL-2 play no role in protecting the HIV-infected patient, and therefore the administration of IL-2 has no benefit,’ says Dr. Neaton. ‘A second possibility is that the CD4+ T cells are at least somewhat functional or that IL-2 has some modest benefit, but that the side effects of IL-2 may neutralize any possible benefit.’
‘. . .although a person’s number of CD4+ T cells is a key measure of success in the treatment of HIV with antiretroviral drugs, we can’t rely on CD4+ T cell counts to predict whether immune-based therapies such as IL-2 will improve the health of HIV-infected individuals,’ concludes Dr. Levy, the principal investigator of SILCAAT.”

If CD4 counts don’t predict what “immune-based” therapies can do . . .
BUT these CD4s are the immune-system cells that have been accepted for a quarter century as the critical ones in HIV/AIDS, the ones that are supposedly killed off by “HIV” — so isn’t EVERY therapy that seeks to increase CD4 an “immune-based” therapy?

If the problem is with the particular TYPE of CD4 cells, these results would be just as damaging to HIV/AIDS theory and practice, since it would mean that faulty or meaningless measures have been used for more than two decades to make life-or-death decisions as to antiretroviral treatment.

Still, the important thing to note is that these trials, though they failed, were actually successful:

“’The purpose of clinical research is to clearly state and accurately test hypotheses with an ultimate goal of improving patient care,’ notes H. Clifford Lane, M.D., director of clinical research at NIAID and a member of the executive committee of ESPRIT. ‘These two clinical trials successfully reached a definitive answer about the utility of IL-2 therapy for treating HIV infection. NIAID thanks the thousands of dedicated volunteers and investigators who made these studies possible. The results will have significant implications for the future development of immune-based therapies for HIV and studies of HIV pathogenesis.’”

But perhaps this was just official spin for public consumption, for at least one other similar trial was abandoned:

“NIAID has discontinued the use of IL-2 in a separate, 20-country clinical trial known as STALWART (which stands for ‘Study of Aldesleukin with and Without Antiretroviral Therapy’).”

I don’t know about SILCAAT, but I do like those acronyms ESPRIT and STALWART. Perhaps NIAID wordsmiths get their inspiration from the Pentagon.

29 Responses to “CD4 counts don’t count — OFFICIAL!”

  1. Dave said

    This little snippet is good:

    “virologic failure” (viral load doesn’t decrease under treatment), “immunologic failure” (CD4 counts don’t increase), and “clinical failure” (operation succeeds, viral load down and CD4 up, patient dies).

    The mainstream theory in a nutshell:

    1. You get this “new” virus via Botswana via a gay bar in Greenwich Village.
    2. You know you have “it”, even when you are healthy, if a lab tech subjectively determines that you have anti-bodies to “it”
    3. “It” only attacks CD4 cells (mechanism unknown and/or unexplained)
    4. We know you are getting worse when your CD4 cell counts drop and/or your “viral load” is high and/or you get pneumonia, Kaposi Sarcoma, tuberculosis or diarrhea.
    5. We have developed over 28 different Black Box drugs to first, increase your CD4 count, now, to decrease your viral load numbers.
    6. If you take this life-saving medicine to treat “it,” and your CD4 numbers don’t increase, we say you suffer from “immunologic” failure.”
    7. If you take this life-saving medicine to treat “it,” and your viral load numbers don’t decrease, we say you suffer from “virologic failure”
    8. If you take this life-saving medicine to treat “it”, and you get sick and die, we blame the virus and muddle and/or ignore the toxicity of the life-saving medicine.

    • We yes we forget th toxicity of the “life saving drugs”. i nearly kicked the bucket, because the Dr said well the drugs are responding well, so its means it just because you have HIV that you are not getting better.

      i did heart ultra sounds, MRI Servical spine, and brain, ct scan , chest, ct brain, i also did ecg tests, to find out why i was dying but looked healthy on the viral load and cd4 testing.

      no one said well why not check the poison from the drugs, except on Dr in Milpark RSA, Dr Shaa very good NEUROLOGIST WHO DID ALL TESTS and said ” hey i can only see the ARV/ HAART you are on as the culprit, you remove the cause you solve your health problem, nothing or no medication can fix this”. she wrote a letter and guess what the Dr said no ways, the ARV is responding well ( let a lone the patient was becoming blind and paralysed and , loosing bladder and bowel movement control, lost mobility, and coordination, and most of all the nerve of the lumber spine that had inflammation was affecting the left half of the body.

      can i prove to you that it was the drugs that costed me all, including my job, my car ( i was told never to drive so we sold the car to avoid driving at all). i stopped the drugs 2 months ago, i dig in the garden, i walk distances i would never walked before, i can spend day with out my specks, the eye specialist told me that my tears where drying in 4 sec, so i could not stay with out the specs. i can sit and not complain.

      who stopped me from HAART, me i was making a life decision despite all the information that saiys you die, when you stop haart. for me a death that come at a time whn i have a peace of mind is a lovely death. people die, but must not be rushed with the arv/haart toxicity.

      the toxicity is consistent with the unexplained ills i suffered, sleeping may be 1 hour in the night. my husband would never touch my feet, i would scream and say move that side since 2002 and now he is shocked i don’t complain when his feet touch mine.

      is is possible that the drug makers are aware of these deadly acts from he haart / arv? if so, this is intentional massacre of people and ensuring that aids dos not end by causing it with the drugs. how pathetic and inhuman!!!!

  2. This goes to show, just like time and time again how HIV mainstream research desperately tries to portray itself as something it’s not, namely scientific, let alone accurate. Aren’t we taught to believe science should be self-correcting?

    It’s sheerly amazing and astonishing that these buffoons haven’t woken up. My guess is that chasing bad research after bad research pays mighty well.

  3. MacDonald said

    Prof Bauer,

    You are being a little unfair. It doesn’t follow from Rodriguez et al (”Predictive value of plasma HIV RNA level on rate of CD4 T-cell decline in untreated HIV infection”) that CD4 count doesn’t affect clinical outcome.

    This study is interesting because HIV positive has been compared with HIV positive: All participants were found to be HIV positive, and apparently all received ARVs. The diferences were IL-2 and its effects.

    When HIV apologists defend their hypothesis, they usually compare HIV positives against HIV negatives. The HIV positives present with a lower initial CD4 count, and they get sick and die quicker and at higher rates than the negatives. This is taken as proof that CD4 count is a cause — not only predictive — of sickness and death.

    It is an arbitrary assumption that the only meaningful difference between HIV positives and HIV negatives are viral load and, crucially, rate of CD4 loss. But this is obscured because HIV positives and negatives are not treated equally, making comparisons increasingly invalid over time. The same holds for those studies that find that HIV positives with low CD4 counts have a worse prognosis than HIV positives with high CD4 counts — the two groups are not treated equally.

    The explanation offered by Dr James D. Neaton, Principal Investigator of ESPRIT, “that IL-2 has some modest benefit, but that the side effects of IL-2 may neutralize any possible benefit”, is common. It is an example of the “Magical Balancing Act” explain-away: The negative effects of IL-2 have carefully “neutralized” the positive effects of a CD4 boost.

    The apologist might ask, “What’s so magical about that? Drugs have side effects that often neutralize their benefits. That’s why we conduct trials to assess safety as well as efficacy”. Yes, but the magic here is that IL-2, in addition to previously known toxicities, is supposed to produce exactly the same (side) effect as “HIV” – ONLY WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF CD4 LOSS! From the article:

    “Providing a synthetic form of the immune system protein interleukin-2 (IL-2) to HIV-infected individuals already taking combination antiretroviral therapy boosts their numbers of CD4+ T cells, the key white blood cells destroyed by HIV, but fails to reduce their risk of HIV-associated opportunistic diseases or death compared with combination antiretroviral therapy alone . . . Additionally, IL-2 recipients in both studies experienced a greater number of serious clinical events already known to be associated with IL-2, including disorders of the heart and blood vessels, injection site reactions and such psychiatric disorders as depression and suicidal behavior”.

    If Dr. Neaton’s assumption is correct, it means that IL-2, among other things, can cause AIDS while increasing the CD4 count. This amounts to a resounding endorsement of Duesberg’s Drugs/AIDS hypothesis.

    In another recent study, corresponding observations were made:

    1. “HIV-uninfected children with SM (Severe Malnutrition) had normal CD4 counts… Critically, we showed that CD4 percentages tended to fall rather than rise on nutritional recovery among the HIV-uninfected children… We propose that the CD4 counts had risen as a result of infection and returned to baseline after antimicrobial treatment”.

    That is, CD4-boosting infections(!) had “neutralized” the depressive effects of malnutrition on the cell-mediated immune system, resulting in children with their immune systems in tatters, but “healthy” according to the CD4 markers.

    At the same time:

    2.(In the HIV-infected group) “the prevalence of severe immunosuppression [AID]…rose (from 17% on admission to 63% by the time of full nutritional recovery)”.

    In other words, HIV-positive children were succesfully treated for their malnutrition, as well as their opportunistic infections (all participants were given anti-microbials) at a time when their CD4 counts were plummeting.

    While these observations do not necessarily refute the theory that HIV causes loss of CD4 cells, they can hardly be taken as evidence that CD4 cells are an accurate marker of immune deficiency. The study authors state:

    “Reduced CD4 T cell numbers were thought to be key to impaired immune responses, but the evidence for this is inconclusive”.

    One mavels, therefore, at the seemingly complete lack of analytical thought on, which triumphantly holds this study up as proof of. . . something?

    Stephen Miles Hughes, Beatrice Amadi, Mwiya Mwiya, Hope Nkamba, Georgina Mulundu, Andrew Tomkins, and David Goldblatt “CD4 Counts Decline Despite Nutritional Recovery in HIV-Infected Zambian Children With Severe Malnutrition” Pediatrics 2009; 123: e347-e351 (Full version freely available. See also the Perth Group’s Letter of Response same place. My last quote stating prevalence of severe immunosuppression is taken verbatim from this Letter.)

    • Henry Bauer said


      A “little” unfair would of course already be a vast improvement over what the HIV/AIDS vigilantes and AIDStruthers practice 8)

      The point is that HIV/AIDS theory says, “HIV” kills CD4 and produces AIDS. Rodriguez et al. found that “viral load” — the amount of “HIV” — has no causative relation to what happens to CD4. So. if “HIV” makes for worse clinical outcome, it makes no sense to “test” whether increasing CD4 gives better clinical outcome, because higher CD4 doesn’t represent overcoming “HIV”.

      You’re quite right, though, that Rodriguez et al. have nothing to say about clinical matters.

  4. Matt said

    As a dissident, I do think that Viral Load is a fairly accurate measure of health. I believe that HIV may simply be other retroviral RNA in the genome that is reactivated if the immune system is stressed. Therefore, the more immune system stress, the more retroviral RNA, and thus the higher the viral load.

    • Henry Bauer said


      You seem to be saying that human endogenous retroviruses, HERVs, are activated under certain conditions of stress, and that “viral load” is somehow an overall measure of this. Viral load is measured on quite specific bits of DNA, so you need to flesh out this idea in much more detail.

  5. Star Zwan said

    Would it be possible to have your opinion, Dr Bauer, on the HHV6 in an article here please. It seems to be tied in with this issue.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Star Zwan:

      All I know about HHV6 is that it’s been associated with Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS), but I don’t know to what extent in the various types of KS. What’s been quite clear is that “HIV” is not the necessary and sufficient cause of KS.

  6. Sadun Kal said

    Noreen Martin often points out that her viral load is pretty high despite her being healthy. She may be an exception, or maybe not.

  7. Matt said

    To quantify “HIV” viral load”, chromatin samples are amplified by PCR. This is the first problem, why not viral particles? Next, since about 6% of the human genome is in homology with the retroviral genome, PCR will simply be amplifying short retro-viral like sequences that are endogenous. Thus the more of this stress, the more of this endogenous retroviral RNA is activated, the higher the viral load…

  8. darrin said

    Hello DR Henry Bauer,

    I was diagnosed hiv+ back in march 1989 when i was 24 and was told, nothing will happen for seven years, but depending on how long i have had it.

    So i went away thinking that’s it, im going to die.I contemplated suicide, but actually doing it, i could take my own life and so happy i didn’t.

    Anyway it came to the seven year mark and was extremely stressed and going through depression, i was losing weight and had thrush in my mouth, so went to see the doc. He told me if i don’t go on the meds i will be dead within 12 months.

    So without question i took the meds. The first meds made vomit, diarrhoea and then gave me shingles and was told to stop them immidietly as they aren’t working.

    Then i went onto a second combination therapy, abacavir, didanosine, and efavirenz. Within 3 months my health improved dramatically, but after a while, i was only able to eat one meal a day, i got extremely high cholesterol, felt depressed and generally didn’t feel good within myself.

    After ten years being on the meds and a person who has always believed aids is man made in some way, i started doing a years research into aids dissidents, i decided back in august 2007 to stop taking my meds.

    I now have a full appetite back, no longer feel down and depressed and feel great from within.

    I haven’t seen a doctor since aug 2007 and he has no idea i have completely stopped taking my meds. I have arranged an appointment to see DR Mark Nelson from the kobler centre at Chelsea and Westminster hospital in London who has been my doctor for ten years.

    I have decided to now tell him I’ve stopped taking my meds 17 months ago. Now i am just your average man who lives an average life, and im not sure what questions to ask when he tries to convince me to take the toxic meds.

    Are you able to give any help on this matter?

    regards, Darrin

    • Henry Bauer said


      I wish I could help, but I have no expertise in medicine. I suggest you get in touch with support groups of HIV+ people who question the orthodox view, or enquire about doctors who are not committed to the orthodox view. If you were in Germany I could suggest Dr. Juliane Sacher or Dr. Claus Koehnlein, or in Austria Dr. Christian Fiala

  9. Sadun Kal said


    I’m not labeled “positive” myself so I don’t really know how doctors approach such cases but can’t you just say that you’re happy with your current situation(assuming you are) and then kindly reject your doctor’s suggestion? Or is this appointment you’re talking about going to be something like a confrontation where you’ll try to prove something to him (and he to you)? Why did you decide to see your doc again?

    Either way, as long as you’re confident that you made the right decision, I don’t see how your appointment can be that problematic. But to be really confident you should have to be sufficiently informed I suppose.

  10. Joe said

    Darrin, I live in London and would be happy to talk to you about these things. I’m not taking ARVs, but I have several friends who are. They seem to be doing quite well, but the one who’s been taking them longest has ‘only’ been taking them for 6 years or so. Two of them also have been told they have high cholesterol levels, and one of them has seemed to bring down his cholesterol levels by food & exercise alone. Since you’ve done a lot of your own research into HIV/AIDS, maybe it would be useful for you to do some investigation into the significance of cholesterol levels too. I would like my friends to try stopping their ARVs but as none of them report any ill effects (or none that they or their doctors attribute to ARVs), they are reluctant to stop taking them. As I’m not an expert, I can’t give them or you any real advice. But if you would like to talk to someone who is fairly independent with regard to AIDS/ARVs, then please e-mail Henry and ask him for my -email address. My belief is that there is premature consensus on the cause of AIDS, and that AIDS is not a single phenomenon, but that there are some health-improving effects of ARVs (whether or not a particular combo works is the luck of the draw), and if they do work it is possible that they are only necessary in the short-term. As you’ve already stopped taking them, all I can really do is act as a sounding-board for you.

  11. Jonathan said

    Good to see you are monitoring the CROI conference. I got as far as a presentation on kidney function, which observed an increased GFR (glomerular filtration rate) decline in HIVers, despite ART. One slide demonstrated that this decline was far lower in the non-treated group of “controllers” than in the group of “controllers” taking ARVs, by a rather significant factor. Indeed, it looked like the rate in the non-treatment cohort was an incline, rather than decline, if I read the data correctly. Of course the presentation buried that information in favor of observations about the danger of VL ‘blips’ and the need for ‘complete viral suppression’ (read: take your drugs faithfully).
    While I don’t have your skill at presenting these contradictions, I have gotten fairly good at spotting them when I see them. To think there is a whole conference of back slappers consistently ignoring such blatant and obvious discrepancies is more than I can handle right now. I’m more interested in researching studies on the longevity of buildings constructed of cards, so I can anticipate the inevitable collapse of this charade. (OK, I’ll remove my tongue from my cheek now).
    I’d also be interested in knowing if you have found it difficult to download/capture the conference information presented? All those pretty slideshows, but I could discover no convenient way to copy/paste the conclusions referenced above here or elsewhere.
    Finally, on a more personal note, as another “poz” person dealing with health issues, the information you and other rethinkers provide has proven critical time and again in helping me find some solid ground to make my own path on. Thank you.

    • Henry Bauer said


      I can’t take credit for monitoring CROI, a friend had sent me a link about that item—which didn’t work, so, yes, I did have the same trouble trying to access the original conference material. I Googled and got that NIH release.

      And I really appreciate the personal note; to be judged useful is an enormous compliment.

  12. Darrin said

    Thank you DR Bauer, sadun kal and joe for your responses. I was in contact with with one of Dr Claus Koehnlein patients back in 2007 and he was told to stop the meds and that made me confident that i was doing the right thing.

    To Joe, i have emailed Dr Henry for email and i look forward to speaking to you.

  13. A friend Henry Bolton on my blog wants to know why i had a cd4 of 201 and a viral load of 650 000, i dont know. its today that i think i must know what these 2 test that ended me on arv/haart since 2001 may 27.

    he used to buy me food supplements just around the same time i tested, oh he was also my Director.

    currently i have don no cd4 or viral load since i ditched treatment. i dont know why have to draw blood, for these two tests in particular, what to thy check that wants the toxin as the solution?

    my cd4 did improve the viral load becom undetected below 25copies but It did not stop the destruction of the system by the toxins. in this regard, i am very confused about why do people have to take arv/ haart in the end result is devastating?

  14. khanyo said

    hi doctor i was diognised 2003 that im hiv when i was pregant of my first child and my husband was hiv- and i never go for the cd4 not until 2006 and it was 266 and i went again 2007 when Iwas pregnant of my 3rd child and and this time it was 369.i am not taking any arv or multivamin and today i went to collect my results and it was 689. tell me what is the cause and what is the cd4 count of a person who is hiv-?

  15. april said

    i was diagnosed in 1991 and am still here in 2015. I took most of all the available medication combos between 1996 to 2013. I had breaks and holidays on those medications. The list of the medication is long and on my own decided to ditch them in 2013 after a bout of burkit lymphoma cancer. It was after doing a lot of reading books authored by famous aids dissidents, that I finally gathered the courage to quit once and for all.
    I now live alive and well except for neuropathy and a couple of scars from the treatments that I encountered over the 24 years. I have endured physical; and emotional suffering, stigma, discrimination, just to name a few. I am now into nutritious foods and sometimes supplements and try to free my self from self degradation caused by this diagnosis
    Looking back at what I have gone thru, I can only encourage others to do their own research so as to gather all the information they need to make wise decisions and choices on how they want doctors to handle their health issues.
    My wish is for is for new research in to this Aids hullabaloo to be done critically and for the original perpetrators to be brought to justice for all the carnage, atrocities and all the human suffering they have caused in the name of curing the so called HI/AIDS. The aids doctors are really a bunch of liscenced killers and they should be charged for crime and same to the American famous aids discoverer Gallo and his French counterpart and co-discoverer Montagner.

    • Henry Bauer said

      I don’t fully understand how the HIV/AIDS blunder got to where it is now. I don’t understand how Gallo allowed his drive for fame to make him think that he had really identified something as cause of AIDS, certainly the articles he published don’t demonstrate it.
      Most scientists are used to trusting what official agencies say, especially those that dole out grants, so when the Secretary of Health and Human Services gave a press conference to reveal Gallo’s work, everyone wanting in on the work would ask for grants based on the Gallo claim.
      So I think a great number of individual steps got us here without any deliberate wrongdoing by anyone, if you allow that incompetence is not deliberate wrongdoing.
      Officials like Fauci have the primary aim of safeguarding their organizations.
      No one has the task of continually re-assessing accepted notions like that HIV causes AIDS, so even the accumulation of evidence proving the theory wrong isn’t noticed.
      And I think a powerful point is that there is no precedent in the history of medicine or of science of so major a blunder that affects so many people, so it seems incredible to almost everyone when people like Peter Duesberg or other “denialists” present arguments and evidence against the accepted belief.
      It would perhaps be easier to rectify matters if it were deliberate wrongdoing instead of the consequence of many social factors.

      • april said

        As a direct casualty of this blunder, I personally think and know that the whole hiv/aids theory is all wrong and I am a living testimony.I am talking ( from the horses’ mouth), after going through it every step of the way. In simple terms, I now know after educating myself and challenging my doctors, that it is so wrong for trusted research, partners, authorities and Big Pharma to have engaged in this atrocious blunder to mankind. Time will soon come hopefully when their terrible acts will come to light and end. The hindrance I see preventing the necessary information going public is a lot of monopolies in the media and research and of course the lead actor on this stage is Big Pharma with their influence (money) and connections in Washington DC. The other big problem is us, the American public who play deaf to all these, or simply staying ignorant and refusing to look at the other side of the coin. All this Aids blunder has created a lot of human suffering especially in ARICA. It is similar to the halaucast, depopulation or the former Nazi stuff but in a subtle way. Thanks a lot Dr Bauer for your great work. You have enlightened the world: I mean to those who are willing to learn and educate themselves. You have done and still continue to do great work. I hope all the people in all corners of the world are reading or ACCESSING YOUR GREAT AND WONDERFUL WORK. Keep it up!!!!.

      • Henry Bauer said


        Thank you, and very best wishes.

  16. april said

    Thanks for your response Dr Bauer. I will keep checking on all your latest comments as much as I can, cos I know I have directly benefited from you and my learning continues. Your comments are very straight forward and easy to understand so as to make some well informed informed decisions. It took me over 20 years to make that great decision and I am happy of that self achievement and I intend to keep it up.

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: