HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Peer review is no better than in-house reports — OFFICIAL!

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/05/14

When you’re in a hole, and you head the International Panel on Climate Change, dig yourself in deeper, and incidentally give continuing comfort to your critics, as well as to critics of other  official international boondoggles (“IPCC’s Parchauri [sic] says climate body must ‘listen and learn’”, by Richard Black, 14 May 2010):
“He [Rajendra Pachauri, head of IPCC] . . . defended the principle of using non-peer-reviewed materials, such as the WWF report wherein the Himalayan error originated, which said the mountain range’s glaciers could disappear by 2035. ‘I’d like to highlight what non-peer-reviewed literature constitutes: reports from the International Energy Agency, the OECD, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and organisations of this nature. ‘There are some highly prestigious NGOs that are doing detailed academic work, and you cannot ignore this.’ But, he observed, people working on assessment had to follow scrupulously the procedures on when and how to use such material and occasionally, as with the Himalayan episode, human error had crept in. . . .
Although Friday’s contributions at the initial hearing here in Amsterdam all come from IPCC and UN personnel, Dr Robbert Dijkgraaf, co-chair of the InterAcademy Council, said the panel would be looking to draw on different shades of opinion over the next few months. . . .
Roger Piekle Jr, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado who has researched the likely costs of natural disasters, remains dissatisfied with the IPCC’s response, and maintains that the review must listen to critical voices if [it] is to be effective. . . .
’However, there are risks here as well, as a poorly conducted review could irreparably damage the institution.’ He also said the review should look at conflicts of interest within the IPCC.”

1. Alert observers of scientific activities will relish Dr. Pachauri’s concession that “occasionally” human error creeps into scientific matters. Who would have thought that? It’s almost as though scientists were human — when everyone knows, surely, that they are not fallible like politicians or journalists, say.
2. Supporters of Medical Hypotheses and of its editor, Dr. Bruce Charlton,  will accept graciously this confirmation from on high that peer review is by no means the best avenue to getting the most worthwhile material disseminated.
3. People familiar with “reports from the International Energy Agency, the OECD, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and organisations of this nature” will be astonished that anyone would regard these biased, agenda-driven, in-house publications as in any way to be relied upon. After all, the organizations producing these reports share the practice of themselves disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of what is in their reports, e.g.
“The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use” (World Bank, Intensifying Action Against HIV/AIDS in Africa–Responding to a Development Crisis–AFRICA REGION–THE WORLD BANK, 1999); yet the authors of the report, which was issued by the World Bank, are employees of the World Bank and produced the report as part of their employment there.
More succinctly,
“UNAIDS does 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” (UNAIDS, Report on the global HIV/AIDS epidemic 2008; UNAIDS/08.25E / JC1510E).
4. AIDS Rethinkers will note that IPCC has the same approach to “reviewing” as does Elsevier: namely, make sure that all “reviewers” are people who are already in your camp and of your opinion.
5. Dr. Piekle’s warning that an honest, unbiased review carries risks is unnecessary. IPCC, Elsevier, and other such organizations are perfectly well aware of that. That’s why they avoid unbiased reviewing.
As to conflicts of interest, in their absence the IPCC, Elsevier, and their kin would be out of business.

14 Responses to “Peer review is no better than in-house reports — OFFICIAL!”

  1. Gorky said

    Yes, there are the same interesting and tragic parallels between HIV/AIDS and Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) “sciences”, and this is just one of them, the blind leading the blind and a wilful contemptuous dismissal of quality control in the journals and in international scientific reports. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Also, the media are a central pivot in both of these two pseudosciences, scientifically illiterate journalists and editors weigh in with hysterics on these topics of which they know nothing. Likewise major scandals of corruption like ClimateGate (which parallels our own scandals in the AIDS industry, e.g. the Uganda HIV 012 trial) don’t mean anything to the true believers, it only intensifies their hysteria, fanaticism and self-righteousness. The same psychological factors are at play, they dig themselves deeper into their trenches.

    There are in fact several cultural/sociological parallels between AIDS and AGW hysterics that have not been remarked on collectively, as far as I know. Naturally the truly knowledgeable scientists and academics who heretically debunk AGW (not to be confused with natural global warming) and face censure, ridicule, bullying and intimidation, censorship and the like for daring to do so (sound familiar?) like Lindzen at MIT, Baliunas at Harvard, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Jaworowski, Tim Patterson, the late T Landscheidt, Patrick Michaels, etc., (so so many in fact) wouldn’t in the main know about the AIDS fiasco and vice versa. In other words, there is specialisation and compartamentalisation in the sciences, plus heretics in whatever scientific discipline face enough ridicule and intimidation and threats to their careers in their own discipline, they would not as a rule weigh in on other heresies in the sciences even if they were sympathetic to other heresies, even if they are cognisant of them. Why make things worse for themselves?

    It is important to recognise specific shared cultural factors that feed into and feed off both HIV/AIDS and AGW hysterics. Funding and careers and reputations are not necessarily the dominant factors in both cases, although of course major ones. Hysteria rooted in beliefs of a coming Apocalypse, an end-of-times millenium fever that is itself predicated on a religious eschatology that is deep-rooted in the Western psyche drives much of the irrationality of an AIDS epidemic/plague and the fear of a universal flooding from rising sea-levels caused by melting ice caps respectively. An irony in both cases is that it is the self-proclaimed experts in the respective sciences, medical and physical (and a fawning secular “intellectual” culture that swallows hook line and sinker everything they say) who in the name of science and rationality and secular values are at the forefront of selling what is truly an end-times irrational religious apocalyptic vision to the world. Indeed this is where the hysteria derives at bottom, it is so deeply unconscious and pervasive that it is barely noticed. To see the obvious is never easy. Psychology speaks of the return of the repressed, that which we wish to deny or dismiss within our psyches, if not fully resolved or recognised consciously boomerangs back on us in another form and with a vengeance.

    We see that here, with a secular Western elite that in the main dismisses and frowns upon the Church and its traditional beliefs and eschatology, only to internalise them and manifest a Christian ‘Revelations’ eschatology in the language of science. There are of course other cultural parallels and factors in both cases that I don’t even mention (some shared, some naturally unique to each fiasco) and cannot on a mere comment on a blog post ramble on and on. Yet, briefly, another “religious” aspect to the AIDS fiasco that is worth mentioning, that we are all aware of, but sometimes it can easily be overlooked, is the sexual repression and sexual guilt in AIDS hysterics. Whilst the dynamics and roots of this repression are obviously complex, one aspect is definitely derived from the sexual repression in Western society itself; and the Church’s role in stoking and perpetuating this repression and guilt is unambiguous. This is a further irony to the only superficially secular front to HIV/AIDS pseudoscience. In other words the AIDS inquisition is such not merely because of its witch-mark ‘HIV’ testing and ARV therapy as substitute for auto-de-fes but its deeper cultural and social dynamics parallel the cultural dynamics of the Inquisition and witch-hunts. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

    It cannot be stressed enough that the cultural and sociological factors to the AIDS fiasco (and any other scientific fiascos like AGW hysterics) need to be emphasised as much as the corporate profiteering and careerism in the medical and other industries, if not more so. Ultimately it is our culture and our psychology that defines our behaviour and attitudes and the ‘madness of crowds’, more so than the vested interests of even the most powerful corporations and the most bloated state beauracracies.

    • Martin said

      Gorky, That was a great reply! My own hero Dr. Thomas Szasz has been writing about the pseudomedical business of psychiatry for almost 50 years! He has not gotten into the AIDS debate and has only mentioned AIDS in passing in some of his writings — as “objective” diagnosis as opposed to the ritual pseudomedical nature of psychiatric nosology. He did not really investigate the ritual pseudomedical nature of AIDS diagnosis because that wasn’t his area of specialization — like you mentioned — that scientists (or specialists) outside of their degreed area of expertise are loath to criticize scientists and doctors that make statements they disagree with and could probably back up with considerable evidence but would be ignored — like the Lauritsens or Mullis’s, etc. Neither are medical doctors directly involved in “treating” AIDS patients (which is the standard ad hominem methodology to discredit AIDS critics).

  2. Tim Hunt said


    I found out about a cure for HIV in this article, here.

    Sorry this is somewhat off topic but what do you think about the study ‘Immunotherapy of HIV-Infected Patients With Gc Protein-Derived Macrophage Activating Factor (GcMAF)’ in the Journal of Medical Virology where they document cures of non-anaemic HIV.

    Apparantly Reuters was the only news agency to briefly report on this research but deafening silence since.

    Yamamoto has also published cures for cancer using GcMAF.

    Personally I was stunned.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Tim Hunt:
      This is far too technical for me to try to assess. However, several things spring to mind that indicate caution:
      — HIV-caused AIDS is accepted
      — Yet the proposed treatment talks about “Microbial infection”
      — KS is said to be an opportunistic cancer, accepted as an AIDS definer, yet we have known for two decades that AIDS-KS is not HIV-associated and may be a non-cancerous dysfunction of blood vessels
      — If something is too good to be true, maybe it isn’t true
      — The author works at the Socrates Institute for Therapeutic Immunology, “a private company categorized under Medical Research and located in Philadelphia, PA. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $200,000 and employs a staff of approximately 5”
      — A single article that makes a startling claim, even in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal, is not to be believed until independent researchers have confirmed that the claim is at least putatively sound.

      • Henry, while what you say is surely true, it doesn’t apply to Dr. Yamamoto. He’s been messing with and reporting on GcMAF for over a decade and has many papers about it in peer reviewed academic journals. One was co-authored by the anti-angiogenesis guy, Folkman. What he doesn’t have is a new patented drug that could lead to monopoly profits. And there are no known reliable manufacturers of GcMAF, aside, of course, from all of us.

        I knew nothing of Nagalase (Alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase) but fetuses make it to protect themselves. Some viruses do likewise. And virtually all cancers do. Isn’t that a coincidence? Well, I don’t think so.

        When a tenth of a microgram, (can you say tiny amount?), of GcMAF is injected into a patient’s blood, their macrophages multiply both their number and their aggressiveness by a factor of six or eight. The effect lasts for just under a week. They go eat up things that shouldn’t be there.

        If a fetus doesn’t make Nagalase, it doesn’t survive. If a cancer doesn’t make Nagalase, we don’t see it and it does no harm, unless the patient’s immune system is seriously debilitated. Dunno much about viruses that do and do not cause production of Nagalase.

        Yamamoto uses the Nagalase level to tell how much cancer is left. He plots it down to not zero but to a normal low level that is not enough to use up all the vitamin D binding protein. Remember that vitamin D is more like a hormone and most African Americans are deficient in it, which could bear on their HIV testing results.

        We still don’t really know what HIV positive means, but I gather that people test HIV negative after a course of GcMAF treatment. This should excite people who care about HIV test results. Why doesn’t it? Is that also for lack of a patented drug that provides monopoly profits? I’ve asked Yamamoto if he will train some lab workers to make GcMAF in vitro. No answer yet.

        Anyway, besides suggesting that these relationships are understandable, I wanted to say that this is not a single paper which makes outrageous claims. It’s a body of work reported for two decades or more in the peer reviewed literature.

        The short version of this essay is now on the back of my business card, under the title, “CURE CANCER NOW” so I can easily hand it to someone and thus provide the pointers so they can read for themselves. That’s my chosen mission for the year, though I worry that it will take much longer.

        If any reader spots an error in my writings or cares to educate me about some aspect of this, I am eager to hear from her.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Richard Karpinski:
        I’m not sure how your point applies to what I wrote about peer review? And I can’t find that I’ve mentioned Yamamoto anywhere? Please advise — I’m even more absent-of-mind than usual, we’ve just moved hoouse and I’m swamped with uninteresting things that need to be done, like notifying businesses and people and organizations of address changes (as Jack Good used to say, “The urgent drives out the important”)>

      • Sorry, Prof. Bauer, I was responding to your response to Tim Hunt’s mention of the GcMAF cure for HIV which was Yamamoto’s paper. Yamamoto is the guy at the Socrates Institute, as you reported. Tim noted that his comment was already somewhat off topic, and I took it even further off your original topic.

        I think Yamamoto’s clinical trials curing cancer are even more important, except for those getting antiretroviral meds. There are even more patients getting expensive, dangerous, and painful treatments for cancer that usually don’t work. In my view, we should pay attention to what Yamamoto says. He’s both a fine scientist and has revolutionary treatments that have already worked on dozens of patients.

  3. Francis said

    Tim Hunt: An interesting article regarding a possible cure for HIV infection, I’m sure mo79uk will take note of the Vitamin-D factor in this paper. It will be interesting what comes of it, Henry, in that there is no mention of ARV treatments and the corresponding profits. So will the mainstream actively research this topic? As for peer review, if it is not in line with current dogma I just can’t see it being endorsed by many. As for independent researchers…..are there any left?

    But it does raise an issue, with Vitamin D, Negroes have a harder time synthesizing this vitamin/hormone due to their own in-built sun-screen, melanin. Could this explain the higher incidence?

    Marco, I’ve not forgotten your request for the Power Ppoint, I was only a participant in the lecture so don’t have ready access, but I have Emailed a request to obtain it so await hopefully and will advise accordingly.

    Regards to all.

    • mo79uk said

      There does seem to be a bit more attention being given to the link between vitamin D and HIV, although this is still interpreted under the orthodox viewpoint.

      If statins are analogues of vitamin D then it might explain why they have an effect on HIV.
      It’s said that a higher vitamin D level reduces chance of infection and child death rate, however it’s more likely that a mother is *passing on* a strong immunomodulatory status than inhibiting any virus. A vitamin D sufficient mother may not produce antibodies to her offspring and therefore may not pass them on because vitamin D optimises innate immunity enough to not need to invoke adaptive immunity.
      AZT decreases vitamin D. Reduction of an immunomodulator in immunodeficient people is like giving laxatives to the underfed, never mind the toxicity of AZT itself.
      One problem haemophiliacs may have is vitamin D resistance by some other mechanism as they frequently report lower bone densities, which is the most classic hallmark of D deficiency.

      • Henry Bauer said

        This is peripheral to your main points, but the first link says:
        “There are many reasons why the dietary-heart-cholesterol hypothesis should be questioned, and why statins might be acting in some other way to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. Here, I propose that rather than being cholesterol-lowering drugs per se, statins act as vitamin D analogues”
        Actually the cholesterol hypothesis is as wrong as HIV/AIDS, and it’s been claimed more recently that any beneficial heart-effect of statins comes from their anti-inflammatory action. Kilmer McCully’s long fight has finally been won, that the chief cause of heart problems are inflammation or abrasion inside arteries and excess of homocysteine, the latter readily countered by folic acid (at levels typically provided by common vitamin supplements).

      • mo79uk said

        Hi Henry,

        I wholeheartedly agree – in fact I’ve been critical of the cholesterol hypothesis before I came to also doubt HIV/AIDS.
        Vitamin D is anti-inflammatory, it needs cholesterol to be made, so high cholesterol (although what ‘high’ actually is is extremely debatable) may just be a marker of vitamin D deficiency, which is simply an inability to fight inflammation, but not a marker of inflammation. This is why statins can have some positive effect on people regardless of their cholesterol levels, and why people with high cholesterol do not necessarily get heart disease.
        Cholesterol reduction by statins is most likely a side effect because the liver does not need to churn out as much in hopes for conversion to vitamin D, because in absence of sunlight it’s entering orally. So in actual effect it’s not even reduction but natural bodily inhibition in response to a molecular clone of vitamin D.
        Anything else that is anti-inflammatory but does not reduce cholesterol would be just as effective, but vitamin D may be the most natural and easiest thing.

        Some cases of heart disease are also down to arterial calcification (which is calcium in the arteries; often confused for cholesterol) on top of inflammation. This would happen when the body lacks vitamin D for proper absorption leading to bone breakdown, and also vitamin K which ensures that calcium from the diet is driven to the skeleton and nowhere else.

      • These are yet more reasons to ensure that one has adequate supplies of vitamin D, but I just was pointed to

        This study claims that the ten tested over the counter brands of vitamin D supplements actually contain as much as 82 percent to as little as less than one percent of their advertised content of vitamin D3, cholecalciferol. The mean was only 33 percent.

  4. Robert Reis said

    It seems that there is evidence that cannabis and hemp (not hemp seed ) oil cure cancers. Hard to patent a weed.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Robert Reis:
      A current disease in medical matters is to treat associations as indications of causation; take the term “risk factor”, for example. Many studies of possible mechanisms are needed to convert associations into evidence. R A Fisher, no less, disputed that a causative connection had been established between smoking and lung cancer so long as the only “evidence” was epidemiological and statistical. Actual biological effects of smoking in dogs provided the necessary evidence.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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