HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Other things being equal . . . .

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/11/21

“Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change” (New York Times, 20 November 2009; “Hacked e-mail is new fodder for climate dispute”, by Andrew C. Revkin).

Mutatis mutandis, the same story could be written about HIV/AIDS:

“The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate HIV/AIDS researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. . . . In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical ‘trick’ (and a computer model) in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend increase in HIV/AIDS. In another, a scientist refers to climate HIV/AIDS skeptics as “idiots.” . . .
Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them. The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming HIV as cause of AIDS is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists. In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, (any of Fauci, Gallo, etc.) and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature failures of vaccine trails, increasing death rate from side effects of HAART, and no sign of heterosexual HIV/AIDS epidemics outside Africa. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming findings that viral load, CD4 counts, and clinical progression are not correlated with one another . . . and it is a travesty that we can’t,”  . . . . The revelations are bound to inflame the public debate . . . .
Dr. Trenberth (you choose) said Friday that he was appalled at the release of the e-mail messages. But he added that he thought the revelations might backfire against climate HIV/AIDS skeptics. He said that he thought that the messages showed “the integrity of scientists.” Still, some of the comments might lend themselves to being interpreted as sinister. In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate HIV/AIDS patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones (you choose), a longtime climate HIV/AIDS researcher . . . said he had used a ‘trick’ . . . to ‘hide the decline’ in temperatures HIV and AIDS numbers. . . . Dr. Mann (you choose) . . . said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem, ‘and not something secret.’ . . . .
But several scientists whose names appear in the e-mail messages said they merely revealed that scientists were human, and did nothing to undercut the body of HIV/AIDS research on global warming.”
[Yes, it does. Since humans can make mistakes, and since scientists are now acknowledged to be human, therefore scientists can make mistakes and claims made by scientists may be wrong — especially when they have conspired for a decade or two or three to suppress data that contradicts the theory they have been peddling.]

“At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as ‘just the way scientists talk.’
But . . . after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent review. He said some messages mused about discrediting him by challenging the veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin by claiming he knew his research was wrong. ‘This shows these are people (John P. Moore, Mark Wainberg, et al.) willing to bend rules and go after other people’s reputations in very serious ways,’ he said.”

“Spencer R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as ‘great material for historians.’”
So will the files of Peter Duesberg, John Lauritsen, Neville Hodgkinson, Joan Shenton, Gordon Stewart, and the many other courageous fighters for the integrity of HIV/AIDS research.

25 Responses to “Other things being equal . . . .”

  1. Sabine Kalitzkus said


    J. P. Moore is not bending any rules. As we all know, he’s at war and “when you’re in a war, there are no rules”. Said Moore in 2007.

    But I think, you shouldn’t do that. I mean, exposing their “weapons” publicly and thereby making them pretty useless. Think about all the innocent people who come to your blog just accidentally, not expecting any harm, just wanting to know the truth about AIDS. And then you welcome these poor fellows with a blog post like the one above. No. You really shouldn’t do that.

    These poor and innocent fellows still do think that AIDS-research has something to do with science. But now, with a blog post like this, you’re destroying all their illusions and delusions. They will lose all their trust in science now, becoming even unable to believe in the global warming myth, being forced to think and research for themselves about the ever changing climate on Earth, the constant ups and downs of temperatures throughout the millions of years of the history of the Earth. And they will refuse to get their swine-flu vaccine. Millions will die from swine-flu now, becoming even unable to suffer from “HIV-disease”.

    No. You shouldn’t do that again.

    • Timewalker said

      Has Mr. Moore never heard of the Geneva Conventions? Does he not know that every military has institutionalized rules of engagement? That there is a huge body of international law addressing war crimes and how to prosecute them? “In a war, there are no rules”… What a thoroughly ignorant statement.

    • Sabine Kalitzkus said

      Timewalker, you’re certainly joking, aren’t you? If you were an unconditionally obedient puppet of a frighteningly powerful Master and you were facing the probability of losing $400 million annual funding for your headquarters (given to you by your frighteningly powerful Master) as soon as you stopped supporting a completely disproven, but nonetheless lucratively established lunatic belief system, I bet you would continue your declaration of war against your imagined enemies like JPM did, as documented by Clark Baker in “Gallo’s Egg”:

      This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly (at least the more influential ones; foot-soldiers like you aren’t worth bothering with).

      By the way, the “foot-soldier” mentioned above was Michael Geiger.

      I bet you would as well twist and turn history until it fits your needs just like JPM, who also said:

      H.I.V. causes AIDS. This is not a controversial claim but an established fact, based on more than 20 years of solid science.

      In real life this “fact” is not based on more than 20 years of “solid science”, but had been announced at a press conference in 1984 without any previous research into whether p19, p24 or reverse transcriptase really cause AIDS or not — as these three items were the only things Gallo had found in his/Montagnier’s non-purified “isolates”. But not denying reality would cost JPM $ 400 million annually. Logically he has to ignore the Geneva Conventions as well.

  2. Frank said

    From The Washington Post:

    Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute who has questioned whether climate change is human-caused, blogged that the e-mails have “the makings of a very big” scandal. “Imagine this sort of news coming in the field of AIDS research,” he added.

  3. Martin said

    Hi Dr. Bauer, Sorry to divert from the topic. I saw an article in the New York Times Magazine today entitled: “The Needle Nexus” subtitle: “Why needle exchange is crucial to preventing a wider AIDS epidemic.”. I skimmed the article but did not read it carefully because it says the same thing they’ve always been saying. My question here is, that since needle-stick injuries have not resulted in a single “HIV” positive, can the same be said of users of heroin? The problem I would suppose of comparing those two groups is there are reasons unrelated to the use of the sharing of syringes that would give the users of heroin a positive result. Has any researcher actually found HIV on an “addict’s” needle?

    • Henry Bauer said

      MArtin: So far as I am aware, no one has actually found HIV ANYWHERE. “HIV” has been created in cultures, and synthesized, but I am not aware of an actual extraction of veritable virions of HIV direct from anywhere.

      • Martin said

        Hi Dr. Bauer, Thanks, that’s what I thought, knowing you probably have looked at more data than anyone else I know of. I say that because how could you really do a complete analysis on the data without trudging through all data if even to check the statistics performed by others who may have a positive (to their benefit) outcome in mind.

    • Philip said’s Dr. Bob claims to have been infected through a freak needlestick injury. On the other hand, I know of a pathology resident here who was conducting an autopsy on an AIDS patient (deceased, of course) when the suturing needle gashed through his gloved and deeply penetrated his hand. HIV negative on baseline and HIV negative six months later.

  4. Sadun Kal said

    Maybe we should start a Dissident Hacking Academy of some sort… Oh it’s probably too late now. I bet HIVers will take precautions after this incident. But wouldn’t it be truly extremely awesome if something like this had happened to Moore’s email address? Alone the dream of such transparency in the HIV/AIDS field is very exciting.

    But on the other hand: HIVers are already behaving in a clearly unscientific fashion. They do so publicly, without fear or hesitation. This is acceptable behavior when it comes to what is generally perceived as “fighting denialism”. So I guess we’re facing huge obstacles, perhaps bigger than the obstacles any group of scientific dissidents ever faced, no?

  5. Sabine Kalitzkus said

    “… there are more people living with HIV than ever before as people are living longer due to the beneficial effects of antiretroviral therapy and population growth“, says UNAIDS.

    Ooops … should condoms really work counterproductively when it comes to saving lives?

    The magicians continue: “UNAIDS and WHO estimate that since the availability of effective treatment in 1996, some 2.9 million lives have been saved.”

    Reality check: “HIV” has a latency period of ten years. Therefore people who became “infected” during the past decade, should not be included in the calculation, because they are still healthy. For convenience purposes I just put the 2.9 million people on ten years of HAART. HAART costs about 20,000 dollars per patient per year. That makes 580 TRILLION dollars to keep 2.9 million “infected” people breathing for ten years.

    Who paid for that?

    There are possibly some more miracles in the new 2009 AIDS epidemic update by UNAIDS.

    But don’t take the miracles too seriously, as…

    “UNAIDS and WHO do not warrant that the information contained in this publication is complete and correct and shall not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of its use.”

    In other words: This publication is as incomplete and incorrect as any other fairy tale.

  6. Sabine Kalitzkus said


    As you are a professor of chemistry and me having very limited knowledge of chemistry (in fact almost none), let me ask you this question:

    Professor of chemistry SCK just instructed his esteemed readers (and the non-esteemed ones like me) that there are several types of mercury – harmless ones and dangerous ones. He says:

    “There is less mercury in a vaccine shot than in a tuna fish sandwich, and the mercury present in the fish is in a more dangerous chemical form.”

    Is that true? What exactly is this more dangerous chemical form of mercury in fish? And what is the harmless chemical form of mercury in vaccines? I just don’t want to kill myself by eating tuna. Should I better get vaccinated instead of eating deadly fish? Or maybe switch from tuna salad to hamburgers?

    I would be grateful for a quick answer, because vaccines could disappear entirely very soon. They are already being eradicated in Africa, a process that could easily spread to Europe and the Americas as well:

    “The polio vaccine eradication campaign has been harmed, notably in Nigeria …”


    I love many things. Weasel wording certainly is one of them. Another one is the confusion of vaccines with viruses.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Sabine: My former specialty in chemistry is not pertinent here (I was an electrochemist, not organic chemist or toxicologist), but I do know that we can absorb “mercury” only when it’s in the form of an organic compound, an organomercurial. In fish it’s thought to be present largely as the organomercurial methyl-mercury. However, thimoseral is also an organomercurial. Data about the relative likelihood or rate of absorption of those two organomercurials by humans is not likely to be available, given that such experiments with humans are not countenanced. One might speculate that, mutatis mutandis, methyl-mercury would be more readily absorbed because it is a smaller molecule. But other things are NOT equal, since we absorb the methyl-mercury via food and it has to negotiate digestive jiuices and the gut-blood barrier before it can get where it does any harm, whereas vaccines are injected direct into tissues, and some proportion of injections surely hit a blood vessel. So it would be good to find out from porfessor SCK what the data are on which his assertions are based.
      The CDC does not dismiss a possibility of harm from thimoseral:
      “Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930’s. There is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.”
      “No convincing evidence of harm” is less than reassuring since it implies that there exists evidence of harm, albeit less than conclusive. Redness and swelling indicate an increased blood flow to the affected area. But perhaps SCK dismisses this because it is based on information from as far back as 1999, and he informed us in his book that work before 2000 might properly be ignored.

    • Sabine Kalitzkus said


      Thanks for your detailed explanation. I’m really happy that I somehow managed to escape chemistry at school. It would have been a major disaster.

      Though things are complicated, I take it that contrary to certain claims mercury in fish should not be as harmful as mercury in a vaccine, because in fish the molecules are smaller than the huge lumps of mercury supplied with the vaccine. Right?

      Your request for data is understandable, but we all know that SCK never wastes his time with scientific data. He’s too busy saving lives. Thus his assertions are never based on any data, but solely on faith. Consequently he does not debate with infidels – that’s his doggy’s job, i.e. one doggy with four names. (I expect this doggy to create a fifth name soon, as doggies tend to get bored with themselves much faster than humans.)

      “No convincing evidence of harm …” Yes, for some people at least the nose should be missing to convince them that harm has happened. It depends on the perspective.

      Regarding the reliability of data the NIAID is facing a difficult problem, in that they obviously have not read SCK’s book. On their page where they try to provide “The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS”, they use the UNAIDS 2000 report and another study from 2000. All other referenced studies were published in 1999 or prior to 1999. There are many referenced papers from the eighties and even two studies from 1982! Obviously this NIAID-“proof” is completely dated and should not be relied upon.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Sabine: Not exactly. The molecule of methyl-mercury is smaller than that of thimoseral because of the organic part, not the mercury part. It’s the injecting into tissue rather than eating that I think might work “in favor” of the vaccine delivering more mercury — per molecule taken in. But we would also need to know how much of each there is in the amount of fish eaten and the amount of vaccine injected to make an informed guess, and the only real answer would have to come from actual experiments.

      • jean umber said

        In thimerosal (or thimoseral), mercury is bounded to sulphur, and this bound is the most stable of all the bounds (mercury sulphide has a Ks of 10^(-50)).
        But cinnabaris (the natural mercury sulphide, which was used in cosmetics in the roman empire), is although a slow toxic, and harm the body in several years.
        I think that thimerosal would harm in the long way.

      • Henry Bauer said

        jean umber: Once again your comment was in the SPAM folder, don’t know why.
        I don’t think the solubility product of mercury sulfide is relevant to thimerosal, where the mercury is attached to a sulfur attached to a benzene ring.
        I haven’t looked into the alleged time-scale on which vaccines with thimerosal are supposed to cause autism or other problems. Since such claimed effects are not universal, it might be that they occur — if at all — when the injecting needle hits a blood vessel, say; or if a few people have particular sensitivity for hereditary or other reasons. There are many possibly confounding factors. Even if epidemiology fails to indicate a statistically significant effect, some sub-group of th population might nevertheless be harmed.

    • Sabine Kalitzkus said

      See, Henry, me and chemistry would have been a major catastrophe. It seems reasonable, though, to expect a potentially harmful agent being more harmful if it is injected than if it is swallowed and thus stomach fluids could take care of it before it reaches the blood stream.

      Honesty demands that I correct a mistake I made yesterday, because I’m always eager to leave propaganda-sites as quickly as possible: The propaganda-piece I quoted from was not produced by SCK but by his ghost-writer, professor of chemistry John P. Moore. It was just copied into the propaganda-site. Anyway, this doesn’t change anything, as JPM doesn’t have time to bother himself with scientific facts, as he’s too busy posing as the authority figure the fragile mental health of his fellow warriors is so desperately craving for.

      As “HansSelyeWasCorrect” (sic) put it so nicely some time ago on AIDSMythExposed:
      “It seems like most of them are working out personal problems by attacking others who are trying to understand a scientific issue in a reasonable way (that is, by asking basic questions and adopting an unbiased, critical attitude). Were they raised in households where the father was ‘in charge’ and could never be questioned?”

  7. Martin said

    Hi Dr. Bauer, It’s funny how when talking about the danger seemingly individual elements like mercury or sodium. Mercury — a silvery liquid metal most familiar in thermometers — as a pure metallic is not poisonous and has no reactivity to our body’s chemistry. As you said in your answer to Sabine’s question, mercury is only poisonous in compounds like mercuric oxide or the organic compounds you mentioned. Sodium in the form of sodium chloride (NaCl) is common table salt. Now sodium is a very reactive metal and as you know (and my own experience in chemistry in both high school and college) it reacts violently with water. It must be stored in oil to just keep it from reacting with the air.
    In my own career (not currently) as a senior manufacturing engineer for complex jet-engine parts, I got the chance to employ some of the stuff I learned in my education.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Martin: I worked in electrochemistry for about twenty years, chiefly with polarography which uses mercury cathodes. Concerns were sometimes raised because mercury got spilt, could never all be cleaned up out of crevices, and we breathed in its vapor. I’m not aware of any documented ill effects to polarographers, including Jaroslav Heyrovsky who got a Nobel Prize for developing the technique and whose lab in Prague was filled for decades with mercury vapor.

      • Martin said

        Hi Dr. Bauer, your experiencial observation is confirmatory. It’s interesting that liquid mercury goes into vapor at room temperature. I guess like water, it too evaporates. Interesting element, mercury.

  8. artwest said

    Dr Bauer
    I don’t know if you’ve seen this:

    A paper of yours is, very approvingly, cited in the context of “climategate”.

    Recommended reading for everyone else, by the way.

  9. mo79uk said

    On the news today I noticed a segment on climate change. Of course it wasn’t the first one I ever saw, but what surprised me this one time was the allowed ending statement about how being alarmist doesn’t help when all the facts aren’t on the table.
    All previous such news pieces on the subject — at least from the same channel — always ended with a prediction of virtually irreversible doom.
    Can’t be a coincidence that it ties with the email breach.

    • Henry Bauer said

      mo79uk: I can only hope you’re right! On the other hand, the Los Angeles Times said the e-mail discovery won’t make any difference because everyone knows global warming is real.
      A major problem is that the media keep talking about “global warming” when the disputed issue is HUMAN-CAUSED global warming. Of course there will be global warming for at least some tens of thousands of years, because we are barely past the last ice age, and ice ages have come periodically every couple of hundred thousand years in the million years or so; and for most of the Earth’s existence, things have been several degrees Centigrade hotter than at present. We’re living in a rare cooler spell.

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: