HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Truth in Russia(n)

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/02/22

In the former Soviet Union, the chief official newspaper was called Правда (Pravda), a word that means “truth”. In those years, this had a certain ironic connotation for non-Soviet observers as well as for dissidents and perhaps the general public within the Soviet Union, because the newspaper’s contents were much more to be disbelieved than believed. In today’s Russia, however, the website PRAVDA seems to be ahead of most of the rest of the world’s news media in revealing actual truth:

AIDS: The Greatest Deadly Lie in the History of Medicine
. . . Where is deserted Africa allegedly doomed for total extinction from AIDS? Gor Shirdel, M.D. of Irish descent who is currently practicing in Kiev, has cured two patients from AIDS.
‘I don’t believe that AIDS is incurable. Weak immune system is an issue that has been around for at least 200 years. It can be solved. Viruses found in the blood of those with AIDS is not the cause of the disease, it’s a consequence of immunodeficiency.   The world thinks AIDS is incurable because two doctors, an American Robert Gallo and a Frenchman Luke Montanye [sic], managed to convince the world in the early 1980s that AIDS is caused by “human immune deficiency virus” (HIV). Montanye even received a Nobel Prize for his “discovery.” Yet, they cannot find this virus in the human body. AIDS patients are diagnosed through the tests that register antibodies in blood, not HIV. These antibodies are developed in blood serum when any virus or bacteria enters the body. The same happens in case of flu, or any other illness or a shot, etc. When antibodies are found in the blood serum, it does not mean that there is a virus in the blood. Positive HIV tests shock patients because proponents of infectious AIDS convinced everyone that an HIV-positive patient will sooner or later die, and that this disease is incurable. . . . [T]here are over six thousand outstanding doctors and scientists in the world who voice their arguments against the opinion that AIDS is incurable. . . . Statistics is stronger than lies. If the published numbers were true, Africa should have become barren by now. Yet, its population exceeds one billion people. The population of South African Republic that has the most cases of AIDS in the world should have declined, but it grew 1.7 times within the period from 1986 to 1999. . . . Not a single person died from AIDS itself. Drug addicts die from drugs that ruin their immune systems.’”

That HIV/AIDS is a scam is underscored by this nicely subtle illustration:

Again unlike most of the rest of the world’s news media, PRAVDA allows its readers to know that there are two sides to the issue:

“Different opinion
Vladimir Nikolaenko, M.D., thinks that doctors all over the world cannot be fooled into treating a made-up disease. ‘Blood tests are used for AIDS diagnostics. If there is no disease, then what affects the results? Also, patients who take anti-viral medications get stabilized. It would not happen if there were no disease. . . . As long as the existence of AIDS has not been denied 100%, doctors must treat their patients and provide them with modern medications to sustain their lives.’”

Nikolaenko exemplifies the situation of practicing physicians, who really have no choice but to act according to official mainstream dogma. Doctors have neither reason nor time to delve into the primary and secondary technical literature to find out whether what they are being told is reliable. There is no reason why Nikolaenko should ever have read the review of testing that states unequivocally that there is no such thing as a gold standard, and therefore no reliable “AIDS” test — Weiss & Cowan, “Laboratory detection of human retroviral infection”, Chapter 8 in Wormser, AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection, which had gone through 4 editions by 2004.

18 Responses to “Truth in Russia(n)”

  1. Philip said

    “Nikolaenko exemplifies the situation of practicing physicians, who really have no choice but to act according to official mainstream dogma. Doctors have neither reason nor time to delve into the primary and secondary technical literature to find out whether what they are being told is reliable.”

    Even if the “official dogma” breaks down, most clinicians don’t know about it and only rely on what they’re told – usually in seminars or conventions funded by drug companies.

    Just today I was telling someone about how a certain doctor in the US was being investigated for fraudulent research regarding celebrex, bextra and vioxx. Nothing. No one knew about it.

  2. James Foye said

    AIDS should stand for “American Invented Disease Scam”. HIV can be “Hopelessly Invisible Virus”.

    I don’t wish to dismiss the plight of people everywhere who have genuine (but of course not HIV-induced) immune deficiency and other terrible illnesses, but these would certainly be accurate expansions of the acronym and abbreviation.

  3. Nikolaenko said, “..doctors must treat their patients and provide them with modern medications to sustain their lives.

    Modern Medications? What ever happened to time tested natural medicines? Why the constant push? Opps, I forgot, It’s the money. Isn’t it? “Must” must mean, “If I dont’t follow suit then I’ll get medical malpractice judgments.

  4. whereistheproof said

    i never thought that one day i will read an article such as this in PRAVDA. i am truly amazed and wonder if there will be any other surprises coming out of the former soviet union. bravo pravda!

    • Frank said

      There are lots of pleasant surprises in the Russian English language media these days. RT is well worth checking as a daily news source. They even host the incomparable American expatriate Max Keiser! The rest of the world has well learned the media game.

  5. Francis said

    I wonder if someone will write to have the editor of Pravda dismissed and the paper realigned or delisted.

    Most likely the response will be, “Who is this fascist, Ivan P. Mooresky.”

    I was under the false impression that we lived in a free society, it appears we can learn a thing or to from the nasty “Reds” on the subjects of democracy and free speech. Or perhaps it’s just a sly communist plot to undermine the “imperialist pharmaceutical oligarchy dogs.”

  6. Francis said

    From todays newspaper.

    Concerns raised over drug firm funding of consumer health groups Sue Dunlevy From: The Advertiser February 23, 2010 12:00AM

    CONSUMER health groups are receiving millions of dollars a year from pharmaceutical companies under a grant system that is raising questions about their independence.

    A News Ltd investigation has found one of the nation’s largest drug companies, Pfizer Australia, which markets the impotence drug Viagra, spent over $890,000 in grants to 18 consumer health organisations in 2008 and over $816,858 in 2009.

    The drug company Glaxco-Smith- Kline last year spent $1.3 million sponsoring 14 consumer health organisations such as the Asthma Foundation and the Cancer Council.

    Drug companies are also spending more than a $1 million a week wining and dining doctors.

    In some cases consumer health organisations such as Impotence Australia and the Australian Lung Foundation owe their very existence to drug company seed funding.

    Pfizer Australia which markets the impotence drug Viagra helped set up the group Impotence Australia in 2000 and 2001 with two $100,000 grants.

    In 2008 Pfizer, which also markets a quit smoking drug Champix, provided $135,000 to set up the Australian Lung Foundation.

    Drug companies cannot advertise their medicines to consumers and they often need pressure from consumer groups to get their medicines onto the taxpayer funded drug subsidy scheme.

    They also benefit when they educate doctors how to use their drugs.

    The drug company Pfizer which makes a leading Alzheimers treatment last year spent $454,500 so 157 doctors could attend a two day master class on Alzheimers disease at the luxury Sheraton Hotel overlooking Darling Harbour.

    This is just one of 30,000 doctor education events drug companies sponsor each year at a cost of $60 million.

    Professor Phillip Mitchell who heads the NSW University School of Psychiatry last year revealed he received $6,500 in fees from drug companies for lectures and service on advisory boards. He vowed to shun future handouts.

    Ray Moynihan a conjoint lecturer in health at the University of Newcastle says drug companies donating to consumer groups and doctors are trying to buy influence.

    `If your specialist is prescribing you a drug it would be nice to know if the manufacturer of that drug is paying your doctor money,’ says Ray Moynihan.

    Consumers Health Forum chief Carol Bennett says it is important that pharmaceutical funding does not undermine the independence of consumer groups.

    Consumer groups turn to drug companies because the government funding received by consumer groups is so paltry.

    A guide for consumer groups developed by her groups suggests they take money from more than one drug company and try to ensure there is no strings attached.

    From January 1 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has made it mandatory for drug companies to make public which consumer health organisations they sponsor .

    Alzheimer’s Australian chief Glenn Rees says his group receives $200,000-$250,000 from drug companies each year and this is a tiny part of his annual $10 million budget.

    The money is spent on research by Access Economics, activities for Dementia Awareness week and the groups biennial conference.

    The Heart Foundation says the funding it receives pays for research to help fight cardiovascular disease and drug companies have no involvement in the research.

    This from one small part of the globe, but we are reassured by AIDS Inc and the Vaccine lobby that everything is above board and Pharmaceutical Companies, Medics and Researchers can all be trusted. Regardless of any direct involvement, it would be a brave if not foolish person that bites the hand that feeds it, so even at a subconscious level results are always going to be skewed in favour of the funding. I would think that in a better world, Pharmaceutical Companies should be made to donate fixed amounts to the Government and then that pool money allocated on the basis of public health needs. That’s in a better world, in this one it’s fairly obvious that the medical system is about as honest as a banana republic.

    • Philip said

      Researchers, like the ones who are being investigated for faking studies on Vioxx, Bextra and Celebrex?

      Drug companies, like the one that covered up heart attack statistics on Avandia?

      Definitely trustworthy!

  7. Francis said

    On the heels of Pfizer.

    From my last post the name Pfizer stands out as a leading contributor to various medical activities, from Doctor Education sessions at 5-star hotels to seed and recurrent funds for health-care advocates. Under recent Australian law they have now been forced to declare where they put their money, which in their website is listed under “Partnerships”. They also make political donations and fly journalists around the world to visit their research facilities. All above board of course.

    I decided to have a very quick look at Pfizer. Should you visit Kalichman’s website Denying AIDS, you’ll see he is currently crowing about CROI, the Conference for Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. His post on the subject includes a picture of my favourite Professor John P. MOORE on the podium giving a lecture on his latest research, an ARV-impregnated vaginal ring to prevent HIV transmission. MOORE true to type has continued his unnatural fascination with the genitalia of monkeys.

    “One of the researchers, John Moore of Weil Cornell Medical College in New York, said his team is now working on a maraviroc-containing vaginal ring, which would release the protective drug over a period of weeks.”

    Now Kalichman and MOORE have a relationship, evidenced by Kalichman posting favourably on him on his blog and MOORE being a regular contributor to Kalichman’s Blog. Both vehemently deny any involvement or funding from Pharmaceutical Companies. The problem I have with this is Kalichman actively touts for MOORE and MOORE touts for MARAVIROC. Coincidentally manufactured by Pfizer.

    Kalichman also points readers to look at the reviews in POZ magazine and The Body, both of which advertise ARV drugs manufactured by Pfizer (along with others). And if you think it is going to get better, Pfizer has entered into a business partnership with Glaxo Smith Kline specifically for the area of HIV/AIDS medications and research.

    In the business world, when companies join or collude to obtain larger market shares, Anti Competitive legislation is often invoked to prevent monopolies forming. In medicine it’s quite OK to form “Partnerships” to tackle health problems though. It’s also OK to make donations to political parties and lobby groups. In the real world it is criminal for public officials to accept bribes for acts or ommissions favourable to a particular cause. In medicine these bribes are disguised as “Doctor Information Sessions”. Now what Kalichman and MOORE should really say is that you can’t PROVE that they accept money from BIG PHARMA. And no doubt the money trail would get very murky, But then one should ask what conference fees did MOORE get to peddle MARAVIROC, who paid for his flights and accomodation, what gifts did conference delegates get, what free samples were given out etc., etc., etc. The same of course can be said for Kalichman. The smoke in this sideshow is a denial of receiving actual cash handouts, which is likely true. What is also true is that these people are indirectly financially linked and advantaged by pharmaceutical companies.

    Having a Danish heritiage I hate to say it, but there is something rotten there.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Francis: The corruption of medical research, academe, and practicing physicians by drug companies has eben extensievly described by a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell, for example in The truth about the drug companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it, Random House 2004.

  8. Henry

    Interesting article and the AIDS issue.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Louis Hissink: Thanks for alerting me. The following is awaiting moderation at Huffington Post, which has the full story mentioned at
      “The claims that circumcision reduces the spread of HIV are based on highly selected as well as flawed reports. The Centers for Disease Control could find no evidence for it in comprehensive studies in the United States, including among the high-risk group of gay men. For details of the errors and flaws in the claims from Africa, including the cited work by R H Gray, see:
      “Circumcision and condom idiocies”, 10 November 2009,; “Abuses of statistics in HIV/AIDS research”, 14 September 2009,; “Clinical trials of circumcision against ‘HIV’ ‘infection’” , 10 September 2009,; “Circumcision pseudo-science’, 2 September 2009,; “Rwanda: circumcise all men—even if it means more HIV infection”, 3 February 2008,

  9. Eric said

    i head there is know AIDS in Russia and i want to find out weather is true or not.

    • Henry Bauer said

      It depends what you mean by “AIDS”. International and some national agencies insist that AIDS is whatever they choose to say it is. I’m sure that many of teh early 1980s AIDS cases were drug-induced illness, and I believe much of what is called “AIDS” in Eastern Europe and Russia and Central Asia is also drug-induced illness. Several of the peaks of “AIDS” incidence there coincide with known epidemics of drug abuse.

  10. ale said

    talking about drug abuse….

    from the mainstream.. (always in conjunction with “hiv-positive”, of course ;). Regards.

  11. Lizo said

    I am of the opinion that the world medical experts are heavily pushing a blinding theory to make everyone see this beast of AIDS as existing whilst it is not there.

    • Henry Bauer said

      While the term “AIDS” can be quite misleading, SOME people classified in that way are actually ill, and should get medical attention — just NOT “antiretroviral” drugs.

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: