HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Spontaneous generation of “HIV”

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/10/25

In places where claimed outbreaks of “HIV” have had “infected needles” as the only possible source of the supposedly infecting agent, the large but unaddressed question is, how did those needles become infected in the first place? And then remain infected long enough to pass on that infection when the purported contagious agent is supposed to survive for only a brief time outside bodily fluids? [HIV/AIDS in Italy — and “NEEDLE ZERO”, 11 October 2008; “Needle ZERO” again; or, HIV pops up magically out of nowhere, 15 November 2008].
It’s as though this “HIV” were spontaneously generating itself. That would not have seemed absurd a couple of centuries ago, when spontaneous generation of living organisms was an acceptable theory, but HIV/AIDS theory is supposed to be scientifically up-to-date.

An even more direct instance of “HIV-positive” in absence of “HIV” is that of certain elite controllers who have no detectable “viral load” (Compounding HIV/AIDS absurdities, 11 October 2009).

There are at least two other situations where “HIV-positive” pops up without any sign that “HIV” was present in the first place: In clinical trials of circumcision as a means of preventing “HIV-positive” status, and in a prospective study of acquisition of “HIV” by pregnant women.


Two clinical trials of circumcision both reported that participants in both control and intervention groups acquired “HIV-positive” status during the trial even while abstaining from intercourse:

“there were seven early seroconverters . . . : four in the circumcision group and three in the control group. Three of the four in the circumcision group reported no sexual activity in the month after circumcision. We cannot exclude the possibility that any of these individuals were actually HIV positive at baseline, and that their infection was not detected. Two of the three early seroconverters in the control group also denied sexual activity in the period before seroconversion” [emphases added; Bailey et al., “Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial”, Lancet, 369 (2007) 643-56].

circumcision  was not protective against HIV acquisition in the few men  who  reported  no  sexual  activity in  a  given  follow-up  interval. There were six incident cases (three in each group)  during periods of reported abstinence. None of these six  participants reported receipt of injections or transfusions  during the follow-up interval of HIV seroconversion; these  participants probably under-reported their sexual activity” [emphases added; Gray et al., “Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial”, Lancet, 369 (2007) 657-66].

The mainstream explanation, then, is that the individuals concerned lied, or that they had been “HIV-positive” at enrolment but failed to be detected by those highly specific “HIV” tests. Sherlock Homes might have agreed in general that when all the likely possibilities have been excluded, one must accept those of high improbability — but Holmes would never have come to believe HIV/AIDS theory in the first place. What a coincidence, that about the same number of men in all four groups became “HIV-positive” in absence of sexual activity. Or, alternatively, what a coincidence that the number who not only lied about sexual activity but also became “HIV-positive” should be the same in all four groups.

HIV Skeptics and AIDS Rethinkers, however, understand that “HIV-positive” does not necessarily bespeak an infection transmitted sexually or by other means. These facts are perfectly compatible with the copious data that show “HIV-positive” to be a condition inducible by any number of stimulating influences. Moreover, the tendency to test “HIV-positive” increases with age from the teens into middle age:


Therefore it is only to be expected that in any group of young men observed for any substantial length of time, a few will become “HIV-positive” — perhaps as a result of flu, or malaria, or a vaccination, etc.


Consistent with these occasional real-time observations of “HIV-positive” incidence among people who have had no sexual activity, no blood transfusions, and no injections is the finding in a large clinical trial carried out over many years that pregnant women become “HIV-positive” at a greater rate than do those who have already given birth and are lactating or those who are neither pregnant nor breastfeeding:


Lest one attempt to explain this away by postulating, counter to common sense, that pregnant women have more sex or more unsafe sex than do non-pregnant women, Gray et al. note that
“The  mean  monthly  frequency  of  intercourse  was  lower  during  pregnancy  (6·7  acts  per month) than during breastfeeding (7·5 acts per month) and  during  non-pregnant  and  non-lactating  intervals (8·0 per month; p<0·05). Therefore, we also estimated the  rate  of  HIV  acquisition  per  coital  act,  which  was higher during pregnancy than in the non-pregnant and non-lactating group (incidence rate ratio 1·42, 95% CI 0·37-3·82). . . . [P]regnant women were  significantly  less  likely  to  report  multiple  sexual partners  than  were  non-pregnant  and  non-lactating women,  and   in   married   couples   the   husbands   of pregnant  women  reported  significantly  fewer  sexual partners  than  husbands  of  non-pregnant  and  non- lactating women. Although there could be misreporting of  sexual  behaviours,  the  results  are  unlikely  to  differ between the three exposure groups, so both female and male  sexual  behaviours  are  unlikely  to  account  for  the excess risk of HIV during pregnancy. . . . [W]e  conclude  that  behavioural  factors  are unlikely  to  explain  why  the  HIV  incidence  rate  is increased  during  pregnancy,  and  we  speculate  that biological factors might have a role. . . . . Hormonal  contraception  has  been  associated  with  increased  risks  of  HIV acquisition   in   some   but   not   all   epidemiological studies” [emphases added].
In overall summary, Gray et al. state:
“Interpretation The risk of HIV acquisition rises during pregnancy. This change is unlikely to be due to sexual risk behaviours, but might be attributable to hormonal changes affecting the genital tract mucosa or immune responses. HIV prevention efforts are needed during pregnancy to protect mothers and their infants.”

How close they come to recognizing the fact of the matter, that “HIV-positive” signifies any one or more of a wide range of physiological conditions, of which pregnancy has long been known to be one. They even cite a study from Malawi that reported higher incidence of “HIV-positive” in pregnancy than post-partum, by a factor of 2.19, and another from Rwanda that reported higher incidence of “HIV-positive” early post-partum compared to later. In South Africa, “HIV-positive” prevalence is persistently higher among pregnant women than among women as a whole [HIV demographics are predictable; HIV is not a contagious infection, 27 August 2008].


But perhaps most remarkable of all is the quite direct evidence in the Gray article that “HIV” can be “caught” in absence of “HIV”. During the study, 338 seroconversions were observed: 23 among pregnant women, 40 among lactating women, and 275 among the others. The article also reports on discordant couples — male partner “HIV-positive”, wife “HIV”-negative — and in those cases there were 77 seroconversions: 6 among pregnant women, 11 among lactating women, and 60 among the rest. The inference is clear that 261 (338-77) seroconversions occurred among couples not known to be discordant — in other words, one partner “caught” “HIV” though the other partner didn’t have it.

Of course, “partners not known to be ‘HIV-positive’” is not the same as “partners known not to be ‘HIV-positive’”. But since the investigators explicitly sought to ascertain the “HIV” status of partners, and were confident enough of their data that they reported separately on “transmission” among discordant couples, it seems unlikely that they would have missed a large enough number to explain all the seroconversions observed in the study; therefore it does seem that as many as 77% (261/338) of the women in the study who became “HIV-positive” did so without any evidence of sexual intercourse with an “HIV-positive” male, indeed, with implicit evidence of LACK of such contact.

Lest this line of inference not be convincing, consider this clear statement in the article’s Summary:
“In married pregnant women who had a sexual relationship with their male spouses, the HIV incidence rate ratio was 1·36  (0·63-2·93).  In  married  pregnant  women  in  HIV-discordant  relationships  (ie,  with  HIV-positive  men)  the incidence rate ratio was 1·76 (0·62-4·03).”
Thus the rate of seroconversions in discordant relationships was very little higher than overall; evidently the rate of seroconversion in non-discordant relationships was appreciable. “HIV” was appearing in absence of “HIV”.

AGAIN: The obvious inference, consistent with large amounts of other data, is that pregnancy per se is a condition that conduces to testing “HIV-positive”. Pregnancy is one of many conditions that conduce to testing “HIV-positive” (see Why pregnant women tend to test “HIV-positive”, 5 October 2009).


Under mainstream HIV/AIDS theory, then,


An irreverent observer might express this as


or as Axel put it,

the virgin birth of “HIV”


P.S. re condoms:
Alert and wary consumers of data will have noted in the Table above not only that pregnant women become “HIV”-positive more often than others, but also that women who used condoms (regularly or irregularly) became “HIV”-positive more often than those who never used condoms.
Just another unacknowledged self-contradiction in HIV/AIDS theory.

11 Responses to “Spontaneous generation of “HIV””

  1. Quyen said

    from Wikipedia, on human endogenous retrovirus

    “In 2007, a collaborative group lead by Doug Nixon and Keith Garrison at the University of California San Francisco, and by Mario Ostrowski and Brad Jones at the University of Toronto, published a study providing evidence for T cell immune responses against HERVs in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infected individuals.[14] The group hypothesized that HIV induces HERV expression in HIV infected cells, and that a vaccine targeting HERV antigens could therefore specifically eliminate HIV infected cells. The potential advantage of this novel approach is that, by using HERV antigens as surrogate markers of HIV infected cells, it could circumvent the difficulty inherent in directly targeting notoriously diverse and rapidly mutating HIV antigens.”

    end of quote

    My understanding is that the body’s respond to HERV could be the same as to HIV, which could suggest that HIV could be manufactured by the body, or it is indistinguishable from those HERV. Please correct me if I’m wrong, as English is not my mother tongue and science is not my major.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Quyen: I think you’re right, but I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable about HERVs to be sure. But I’ve seen other articles that suggest “HIV” tests might be picking up things generated by HERVs. Don’t have time to look for them just now, getting ready for a trip.

  2. mo79uk said

    Another erroneous thing is differing information about HIV transmission through needles.
    I’ve heard some say you only need so much as a pinprick, other says say lots of infected blood going into your system.

    Surely, if HIV existed, quantity wouldn’t matter in the slightest.

    • Martin said

      I would love to see the research demonstrating that HIV was actually present on the needles complete with electron photomicrographs. I’ll bet all the money spent on AIDS that there isn’t a single retrovirus ever found on one. That is why all of the needle-stick accidents never had the magical seroconversion (what ever that is — is that a positive result on an ELISA?).

      • Henry Bauer said

        Martin: You may have meant the question rhetorically, ironically, but yes, seroconversion means generation of antibodies, hence ELISA-positive

  3. What recourse would a person have if he was “positive” that he received a positive HIV test and has taken the toxic, disfiguring medications prescribed to him for “AIDS” when he knew and still knows that he in fact had hepatitis B (verified) and never HIV or AIDS? Since drugs such as Viramune, Zerit, Videx, Virumune and others have won successful lawsuits because they made people very, very sick, what about people like myself who most likely was never actually HIV+ to begin with but was given all of the above drugs, plus Ziagen which caused him to get down to 115lbs and lose all kidney AND liver function and caused him to be told by a whole panel of doctors that he could not POSSIBLY live through the night (that was way back in 1997 by the way)? In fact they STILL have me on the ultra-toxic CANCER drug, AZT though the form of Combivir. I know assuredly that I have never, EVER been sick from AIDS or HIV and was only tested one time in 1991.

    Further proof of my story is that when I tested positive in 1991 (I KNEW that I had hepatitis B and because my white blood cells were elevated they also did a HIV test which showed positive) they said that my T-cells were 220 and gave me an AIDS (actually they called it ARC; AIDS Related Complex) diagnosis. When I went back to have my T-cells checked the very next time THEY WERE 1100! I just assumed that the first reading must have been wrong, and the next time they checked the T-cells they were nearly 1600! OK, through the years my T-cells began to fall and went lower and lower but I know now, assuredly that it was because of the very toxic drugs and NOT because of HIV or AIDS.

    I have been permanently disfigured, suffer from neuropathy and for awhile had total dementia to the point that I literally didn’t even know my name!

    So what recourse would I have or who could I even turn to to try to find answers?

    Michael Beasley
    Corpus Christi, TX

    • Henry Bauer said

      Joseph (Michael) Beasley: Try Googling “Audrey Serrano” for an analogous case, she got a large settlement. You need to find a lawyer who is willing to represent you to bring charges against whooever diagnosed and then “treated” you

      • I am very aware of the Audrey Serrano case and was shocked at how my own “case” so closely paralleled hers. I was told that in order to pursue a case I would need to find the SAME attorney who won her case, and of course that wouldn’t be possible. I was told the same thing regarding the drugs that I have taken through the years that have left me permanently disfigured me even though they were on current drug watch lists and the drugs themselves have had successful lawsuits brought against them individually; that I would need to know what attorney had won the case against those drug manufacturers and contact THAT attorney who won THAT case. Such things are of course not possible either. I am finding it a very difficult thing to know just where to start or who to contact. The problems come when people begin to say, “Surely you were RETESTED the times that you were put into the hospital.”, and to that how would I know if I was retested or not. I do maintain that a positive HIV test merely means that you tested positive for the ANTIBODIES for HIV (meaning that you had built up antibodies AGAINST HIV, not that you had HIV yourself) and this would be a lawsuit against the whole hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS, and doubtful that I would be able to find an attorney who would come up against the idea that HIV causes AIDS either. How would a person prove that he never had HIV or AIDS even though he is “positive” that he never had it? Other than ME knowing that I have never one single time have been sick from HIV or AIDS, and only having knowledge of one test and only knowing the drugs that I was given by SEVERAL doctors throughout the years nearly killed me and left me permanently disfigured (liatrophy and lipodystrophy) and damaged (neuropathy and a host of other illnesses), what attorney would be willing to take such a case except an attorney who had already taken a similar case and won it?

      • Henry Bauer said

        Joseph Beasley: Maybe set up a website for people who have had your type of experience? Exchange ideas? Form an association, canvass for a lawyer willing to consider a class-action suit?

  4. MacDonald said

    Minister Mike,

    You state:

    [I] knew and still know that [I] in fact had hepatitis B (verified) and never HIV or AIDS?

    How do you know this if at the same time you don’t know if you were ever re-tested? Why don’t you get more tests done?

    Why are you still taking the “ultratoxic cancer drug” Combivir, when you know you are not infected?

    If you were never sick, why were you put in hospital several times, according to your own narrative? If it was the drugs that made you sick, the question is still the same, why are you taking them?

    Why is it impossible for you to get Audrey Serrano’s lawyer, or any other lawyer who has fought a similar lawsuit?

    How can anything be impossible to you who has managed to gather such impressive scientific evidence as witness that YHWH and YHWH alone is an awesome god?

    You ask:

    what attorney would be willing to take such a case except an attorney who had already taken a similar case and won it?

    Science has led you astray, friend. The fact that some lawyers have taken such a case and won while still being virgins at it, does that not prove to you that creatio ex materia is a maxim invented by unbelievers?

    Surely the Awesome One could be prevailed upon just one more time to perform the miracle of creatio ex nihilo, or ex deo if you want to get technical about it, and provide another such divinely inspired lawyer.

    • JMichael said

      The reason I don’t get “retested” is simple: because the test tests for ANTIBODIES against HIV and NOT for the presence of HIV itself. I know this now because one time I tested positive for CMV antibodies and was really upset about that until my doctor explained that I tested positive NOT for CMV itself, but for the antibodies against it and that is a GOOD thing meaning that I probably wouldn’t ever get CMV. Once you have antibodies against something you don’t lose those antibodies, so of course if I took another one of their HIV antibody tests it would still show “positive”. I know assuredly that I was never sick from HIV or AIDS and the only times that I was ever in the hospital was to 1. have several benign lumps removed from my breasts 2. hospitalized TWICE for blood clots in my legs and who knows what caused that?!! 3. from taking Ziagen, a powerful toxic EXPERIMENTAL HIV drug that I was highly allergic to that very nearly cost me my life and 4. the most recent visit because they prescribed Motrin and Bactrim to me knowing that I was already on other blood thinners and their mistake caused me to have to receive 3 or 4 bags of blood, spend three days in intensive care plus an additional week in the hospital after that and I AM STILL BLEEDING besides. All of this was over a nearly 20 year period. I am still doing GREAT and in fact even after the toxic HIV drugs my t-cell count is above 600, NO presence of the “virus” in my blood; REMARKABLE.

      Of course YHWH is my Healer. I wouldn’t be here if He wasn’t!…and only recently have I taken myself off of the toxic drugs because only recently I began to rethink the THEORY that HIV=AIDS.

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: