HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Duesberg vindicated

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/06/22

In April, it had become known that UC Berkeley had received anonymous charges against Peter Duesberg:

“The specific allegations are that an article you submitted to Medical Hypotheses was investigated and then withdrawn by the publisher based on issues of credibility and false claims. The allegations also state that you failed to declare a relevant conflict of interest with regard to the commercial interests of your co-authors” (Greg Miller, “Exclusive: AIDS scientist investigated for misconduct after complaint”, ScienceInsider, 16 April).
[It must have galled the complainants to see Duesberg described as an AIDS scientist on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, publisher of the flagship periodical Science.]

Two months later, the university admits that it finds no reason to take action on the charges (Martin Enserink, “Berkeley drops probe of Duesberg after finding ‘insufficient evidence’”, June 21).

In other words, Duesberg did not fail to declare a relevant conflict of interest, and there was no evidence of false claims. The university thereby confirms what Rethinkers knew all along, that this was just part of the continuing ad hominem attempts to discredit Duesberg by people who cannot discredit by means of data his substantive assertions about HIV/AIDS.

In this connection, it’s worth noting too that Duesberg’s criticism of inflated AIDS-death numbers for South Africa, suppressed from Medical Hypotheses, has been vindicated by publication in a peer-reviewed, PubMed-abstracted journal [Medical students in Africa need not fear HIV, 2010/05/31 ; REPRINT of Galletti & Bauer, 2010/06/03].

Altogether, on those rare occasions when critiques of Duesberg, or of AIDS Rethinking in general, are considered openly and by even half-way unbiased people, Duesberg et al. come out ahead. The UC Berkeley investigation found that the charges could not be sustained, even though the task had been delegated to an individual who has himself done mainstream HIV/AIDS research. [UC Berkeley evidently lacks understanding of conflicts of interest.] When scientific periodicals like the Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology, that are not dominated by HIV/AIDS vigilantes, obtain peer review of Rethinking articles, those article are judged on the basis of the evidence they present and they get published. My book was reviewed favorably in half-a-dozen independent, disinterested publications (as well as in a couple of friendly ones); it was ignored by all but one mainstream HIV/AIDS periodical,  and that review was unable to cite any specific instance where the evidence I present is faulty in some way; it acknowledged the book to be “richly documented”, “asking good questions”, and for pointing to the “weak quality of evidence supporting the views  of  HIV  propagation” promulgated by the mainstream”.

Defenders of the flawed HIV = AIDS belief have resorted to ad hominem attacks for upwards of two decades simply because they have never been able to answer substantively the points raised by Peter Duesberg, by John Lauritsen, by the Perth Group, by Robert Root-Bernstein, by Gordon Stewart, and by so many other doctors, historians, journalists, scientists, and people who have experienced the trauma of being declared “HIV-positive” and being subjected to antiretroviral “treatment”.

Nowhere was it ever proved that HIV exists as infectious pathogenic virions inside AIDS patients, let alone in “HIV-positive” individuals. The Rethinking challenge has never been met: Show us the publication(s) in which that proof supposedly resides.

Of course, the mainstream is being dragged only very slowly, metaphorically kicking and screaming, to its eventual nasty but rather well-deserved fate of having to face the fact and consequences of its incompetent and iatrogenic actions. UC Berkeley’s lawyerly language in notifying Duesberg that he was off the hook was anything but gracious, and stands as yet another blemish on that university’s earlier more honorable reputation. HIV/AIDS vigilantes are already attempting to capitalize on this gracelessness by portraying Duesberg’s vindication as a Scottish-type “not proven” verdict rather than as a plain exoneration. But the fact remains, established by more than two decades of determined initiatives to discredit Duesberg, that when an even halfway independent judgment is made, all attempts to discredit him fail, and the attackers can do no more than nitpick, misquote, and continue to shout Big Lies.

21 Responses to “Duesberg vindicated”

  1. You end with the L-word there (a word I am sometimes tempted into using myself).
    I wonder what evidence there is on the question of how much, how many or how often pseudoscientists actually believe they are pursuing a truthful path rather than knowingly engaging in a scam. The question is complexified by the consideration that people can have thoughts that exist in their brains but are suppressed from consciousness due to being, ermm, stressful?, cognitively dissonant?, …inconvenient? Does this make them decent people rather than self-serving charlatans?
    Cases outside of hiv>>aids come to mind. For instance perhaps Simon Baron-Cohen simply cannot get out of denial of the possibility (reality!) that my ideas are far superior to his own rather than apparently not meriting even mentioning.
    Or consider the Chief Dental Officer parading his professional idiocy in the fifth minute here:

    He later complained of being misrepresented. Shouldn’t he rather have complained about his own utter incompetence being laid bare? (There are numerous refs disproving him from years ago.)

    • Henry Bauer said

      Robin:
      Lots of complications here, but I’ll just mention “pseudoscientists”: there exists no satisfcory definition of that, nor criteria for defining pseudoscience; see (for instance) Science or Pseudoscience? and Chapter 8 in Beyond Velikovsky.

    • Gorky said

      I have to say that going by the irrational nature and defences of the AIDS orthodoxy and the similar manner regarding the historical perpetuation of the status quo for other dubious paradigms/beliefs in the physical, natural and social sciences (that in hindsight, decades even centuries later are universally recognised for their erroneous nature), and relevant to the same point – the deeply entrenched yet flawed and arguably erroneous beliefs across society as a whole and the manner of their perpetuation century after century; the facts here argue in favour of unconscious self-deception as much as anything. In other words, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

      Cognitive dissonance and associated projection onto the ‘heretic’, wishful thinking and the like is foremost among the AIDS orthodoxy, and this can only be the case if the AIDS fiasco is perpetuated by true believers, rather than a wilful deliberate scam by grifters conscious of their scamming.

      This is why the AIDS orthodoxy is so relentless, zealots do far more damage than mere grifters motivated solely by greed, cynicism or prestige. The conquistadors were able to lay waste to Latin American pre-Columbian civilisations with such rapidity and against considerable odds (given their remarkably small numbers) because they were true believers who really thought they had God on their side, their greed (which was there of course) was secondary to their zealotry.

      When one looks at high-profile figures selling the AIDS status quo across the world – from Larry Kramer to Liz Taylor, Bill Clinton to Mandela and Bishop Tutu, the TAG in the US, TAC in South Africa, Médecins Sans Frontières etc – they really do not know what they do. One may argue but what about the professional hot-shots at the NIH including NIAID, DAIDS, the NCI, the universities and research institutes? – I would say likewise. Their incoherent and irrational responses to AIDS dissent reveal cognitive dissonance at work more than anything else.

      For a recent example of this if you go to the AIDS frontpage of the NIAID website (remember A Fauci is the director there), there is a video interview with an ‘elite controller’, one Bob Hoff. The NIAID website itself tells us very prominently, “of Bob Hoff, HIV positive for more than 25 years, who has no viral load and has never taken medication.” Come again??! I had to read that twice, three times even, so gobsmacked was I by this. I thought initially that I had gone to the wrong website, an AIDS dissident website and not the NIAID page, because you would expect this kind of damning indictment of the AIDS status quo to be the last thing the NIH would admit to, but no it’s there very visibly on their AIDS frontpage. The only thing that can explain this kind of unintentional give-away is the psychology of the true believers. They are so sure they are right that they expose themselves all over the place without realising it at all.

      The more their ship leaks the more convinced they are that they are firmly afloat, high and dry – this is the psychology of the true believer, not the scam-artist.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Gorky: Many thanks, I agree completely; and even more profuse thanks for that information about NIAID and the elite controller.

  2. (thanks for link/advert to your book; I’ll reply to tear it apart later if I havent completely pseudified myself in the meantime.
    Meanwhile I fear that Gorky could be turning you into a nodding donkey!
    But will not he forgetting that 25 years incubation in any hurry!)

  3. but I’ll just mention “pseudoscientists”: there exists no satisfactory definition of that, nor criteria for defining pseudoscience; see (for instance) Science or Pseudoscience? and Chapter 8 in Beyond Velikovsky.

    Is there a “satisfactory definition” of “truth”?
    Or “criteria for defining” truth?

    those and many other subjects have been called “pseudo-science” or “pathological science”;
    but how can you decide whether such a subject is pseudo or wheher it will turn out to be real science?

    You’re looking at it with the wrong conceptual framework there; rather than comparing “subjects” you should be thinking in terms of alternative theories. There’s a lot of competent non-pseudo work in homeopathy (etc), namely the reasonings of why it is grossly implausible and the repeated findings that it doesn’t work.

    >the theory of evolution, for example, isn’t [conceivably] falsifiable.

    It certainly is. If you examined the facts and found that species have never changed over the aeons, or just new species spontaneously emerged fully formed (a la creationism), then the theory of evolution by nat sel would indeed be falsified by those facts.

    >the often cited criterion that a theory is only scientific if it is falsifiable doesn’t work and was never adopted by most philosophers; the theory of evolution, for example, isn’t falsifiable.

    “Philosophers” is just a pretentious word for rather worthless people who combine their opinionatedness with conceit. Speaking as a mere thinking being I can say that there is another standard conceptual error here. A worthy theory should ideally be conceivably falsifiable, but must in practice not be falsifiable (i.e. falsified). If the latter then it’s disproven so no good! The ideal of falsifiability has been perverted by the oxymoronic “professional scientists” into “generates testable predictions” which translates in less pseudic language as “generates more jobs for us” (e.g. hiv/aids).

    As Imre Lakatos pointed out, in practice theories are protected from disproof by inventing ad hoc hypotheses added to the core theory.

    But this is not a really sound objection because the ad hoc hypotheses quickly get too unreasonable to be taken seriously. Credibility of a theory can be a matter of judgement at the end of the day rather than of proof. But the judgement is usually far from being a line-call, as for instance my point above about the falsification of evolution. The required facts would be so ridiculous that you did not even conceive of their possibility hah!

    However, Popper’s insight that theories can never be positively proved, and that science advances by disproving theories, remains widely accepted.

    Indeed even “~philosophers~” sometimes manage to state a truth, usually a prosaic truth that’s obvious without need for prior study or investigation, let alone publishing yet another a book to waste everyone’s time.

    the criterion that “the scientific method” must be used in real science doesn’t work because there is no such method (see Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, 1992)
    >the answer can’t be that science is right and pseudo is wrong because science changes its mind periodically and some things once called pseudo are now recognized as quite real, like analgesia by acupuncture, ball lightning, giant squid.

    Jeez. Science can’t change its mind. Science hasn’t got a mind, only people/organisms have them. When some persons’ understanding changes it is only those persons’ understanding that changes, not the truth or falsity of what they are understanding. You appear to be seriously infected with the relativititis that is rotting academia; well it does go with your being an emeritus from one of those mental institutions!

    Please tell me, quite how can you hold such a strong view that hiv>>aids is untrue? Could it be something like, duuuh, failure to relate to known facts or to known logical principles? Additionally supported by the way that its supporters avoid discussing with its critics, and instead try to suppress their views misrepresent and persecute their authors? These are the ways by which pseudo can be distinguished from genuine. But only if you have the capacity for seeing that distinction, that power of judgement. And a great many people don’t, especially among the riff-raff that gets through the inverted meritocracy process into the “centres of excellence”. (I’ll put a few links in a follow-up comment)

  4. (…following on…)
    On the limited utility of “falsifiability” or “generates testable predictions” as a criterion for acceptability of a theory, see the last two paragraphs of my 1993-published autism theory.
    A key point is that a theory supposedly “is” unscientific merely because someone else had already performed some particular experiments at the date one thought-of/published/submitted the theory; which is obviously absurd!

    Also relevant is my discussion of pseudocontroversy, and of the absurd “no such thing as truth” ideology, and of individual differences and criteria of intellectual merit, and the social context that is a decadent society, all in my book The Future is Here!” downloadable free (unlike HB’s offering hah) though as a struggling invalid no kind donation will be refused.

    An example of the detritus that infests the “centres of excellence” is the professors who on the one hand (a) refuse publication of a theory on grounds that the author presents no evidence for some of its ideas, so it is therefore “mere speculation”, and on the other hand (b) refuse publication on the grounds that all the ideas already have evidence presented in their support, so the theory is therefore “unscientific” and worthless due to failing to “generate new testable predictions”. These are the sort of reversed tihs that prevent the genuine excellence from getting a hearing.

  5. However, Popper’s insight that theories can never be positively proved, and that science advances by disproving theories, remains widely accepted.

    A better way of conceptualising this is arguably that theories vary in their degree of credibility of being untrue. Some theories (Darwin, Boltzmann, Wegener, electromagnetics) have such low level of credibility of being untrue that they might as well be considered proven true in practice. And science advances by adjusting the credibility ratings. Post-Copernican people eventually realised that the stars really could be an ultra-mind-boggling distance away, and that objection is now considered laughable.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Robin:
      “such low level of credibility of being untrue that they might as well be considered proven true in practice” can be VERY DANGEROUS if it determiens actions.
      “Eventually” can be too long to avoid catastrophes: like HIV/AIDS

  6. BrandonD said

    Robin Clarke: “It certainly is. If you examined the facts and found that species have never changed over the aeons, or just new species spontaneously emerged fully formed (a la creationism), then the theory of evolution by nat sel would indeed be falsified by those facts.”

    I can provide examples of both off the top of my head.

    Species unchanged over millions of years – Coelacanth, among many others.

    Time period where species emerged fully formed – Cambrian explosion, among many others.

    The fact that proponents of our contemporary evolutionary theory can still weasel around such contradictions is at least one clear indication that the theory is not falsifiable.

    The amount of cracks and flaws in any institutionally-supported idea is exactly proportional to the amount of “rabid defenders” it has. Which speaks volumes about many of our cherished myths. And since those rabid defenders can’t paste those cracks with empirical evidence, they instead rely on imagination and mathematics.

    Nice work Bauer, on the uphill battle against the rabid defenders of our precious cultural mythologies. It’s not an easy road but I’m glad there are people trying.

    • Thanks for your thoughts BrandonD but your confidence seems unwarranted. I did not mean that there were no examples of species unchanged. I meant a scenario in which no species ever changed, or in which the only change ever was sudden emergences.
      Furthermore your point about some species “suddenly” emerging has to be put in time-scale context. A period of many turbulent years (producing stressful, dna-disrupting, rapid evolution) would register as an instant in the geological record.

    • Henry Bauer said

      BrandonD, Robin Clarke, Tom Hemmingsen:
      The term “evolution” is thrown around in so many different ways, need to be very exact in defining what we’re talking about.
      The EVIDENCE from fossils is of increasing complexity ovcer billions of years: provided the dating emthods are sound (which I think they are).
      The EVIDENCE from molecular biology is that all living things that we’ve so far encountered use the same chemicals and chemical reactions.
      The EVIDENCE from comparing populations is that species adapt to differing envionments “permanently” — i.e. involving genetic change.
      The similarity of mitochondria and chloroplasts to bacteria makes it highly plausible that eukaryotes came into existence through symbiosis.

      The THEORY of natural selection can only explain survival, not how variations arise. The symbiosis instance indicates strongly that one extreme (mis)interpretation of “natural selection” or (“evolution”) is contrary to evidence as well as common sense, namely, the notion that “normal” variations plus natural selection suffice to explain all that’s happened over 4 billion years.

      Mutations — via radiation, chemical action, whatever –may bring about smaller or larger changes that may or may not be viable.

      It seems to me reasonable to infer that life on Earth has developed from relative simplicity to relative complexity via mutations, normal variations, symbiosis, population isolation, and possibly other mechanisms, with natural selection a prominent mechanism.

      There is no (not yet?) satisfactory explanation for the origin of life on earth.

      I find it equally (im)plausible that all this has happened through the exercise of “intelligence” of some sort, or that it has done so without that. I’m firmly of the opinion that human minds are incapable of grappling with that ultimate question. I think it’s egregious hubris to imagine that humans can judge whether or not “God” exists, and equally egregious hubris to imagine that humans can interpret “God’s” mind.

      I see no way to falsify a belief that “God” got things going in such a way as to make everything look “natural”. “Deism” seems to me an eminently rational position, albeit unprovable and also disprovable.

  7. Frank said

    Do you ever despair at it all? Because to me, the fact that this is so glaringly obvious and that we as a species are still so ignorant and stupid as to not be able to have an open discussion on something where so many lives are at stake is simply disgusting… the ad hominem attacks, the TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE, the ‘House of Numbers’, if you will… I just don’t know. I just came across a ‘wiki’ on ‘aids denialism’ and the tone of it is so obviously trying to support an unsupportable status quo for any rational thinking person that I can’t believe how many people easily fall for it. And I’m a married heterosexual male, so I only came to this whole thing by one day just asking myself, “Gee, what IS HIV/AIDS?” and the first thing that is obvious is that nobody really knows… the second thing is that everyone pretends they do… the third thing is the patently ridiculous information on the latency period. Anyone who has half a brain should have their bs detector going off just by reading the literature on latency, transmission, and the accuracy of the tests themselves.

    This is just another example, but I also recently experienced this watching Ben Stein’s documentary on intelligent design. I came away from it thinking, “Ok, so the foremost proponent on evolution admits it’s possible that a superior alien intelligence could have seeded life on earth, isn’t that a win for the intelligent design people?” Nope… go around to all the reviews and it’s literally the exact same superiority complex that you have with HIV/AIDS. A group of people who lack any humility whatsoever on their position and spout rhetoric in which they believe that evolutionary theory has proven more than it has, even when it’s glaringly obvious that they haven’t. I always think that atheists are just as zealous and insane as any whacked out religious fundamentalist because they are going on blind faith just as much as those who believe in a God. My point is, with evolution, just as with HIV/AIDS and climate control, the vast majority of the sheep pounding the drum know less about their own position and the science behind it than the so-called denialists. How does one even combat such insanity?

    I feel that once the facts get out more into the more mainstream, well… you ain’t seen nuthin yet in terms of people VIOLENTLY defending the status quo. It’s going to get really ugly and I honestly don’t know if it will be overcome. We have to understand, for the average person with no horse in this race, the idea that this could all have been somewhat of an accident or a misunderstanding that got so much traction it couldn’t be reversed means accepting (as we’ve had to with the ‘geniuses’ running our economy) that all of medical science (and really, science in general) is suspect… I mean, I can’t even put into words what this means in terms of money spent, lives lost, and full scale destruction of credibility for those involved. It’s a huge pill to swallow and one that the average person doesn’t need to swallow in order to go on living their lives so it’s part of the reason I think the average person will remain committed to believing in the dogma (which is ever so slowly reversing itself from doomsday positions just to avoid this outcome!)… basically, at a certain point, whomever shouts the loudest is going to win, and I don’t think it will have much to do with the facts.

    Sorry to be so depressing, but honestly, how do you combat these feelings?

    • Henry Bauer said

      Frank:
      I guess one has to have faith that eventually the facts will win out, and the relatively silent majority of relatively pragmatic people will overcome the fanatical dogmatists who populate both extremes of so many issues.
      With HIV/AIDS, it is quite difficult to believe that what has happened actually happened, because there is simply no precedent for “science” to go so disastrously wrong for so long on a matter that directly affects so many people. It was hard even for me to believe it, even after seeing that the actual mainstream data disprove the mainstream dogma, and I was well prepared by having learned about history of science, and the non-existence of a “scientific method”. Matters have changed so much over about the last 50 years, there’s been a “bubble” of “scientific research” just as ill founded as any of the economic bubbles that have burst periodically.

      • Simply no precedent? Haven’t you heard of the Lysenkoism catastrophe? There are also long-term precedents (not yet burst) in the fluoridation scam, the dental mercury “no evidence of harm” scam, and others.

        I agree about facts eventually winning in this case though. It becomes increasingly ridiculous that the “epidemic” just continues on a plateau, that “elite controllers” just get older and older in health, and that aids “research” goes on failing decade after decade to output anything useful. The recent attack on Duesberg suggests they’re getting worried.

        As for wikipedia, please don’t fret. I have found that it is truly a pile of trash in dealing with any medical/profit-tainted subject. Its own rules of only allowing “verifiable” material insist on defining anything issued by the medical corporate establishment as being automatically qualifying as verifiable, whereas anything that is heretic or novel (such as this blog or a paper that fails to get through the “peer review” process), even if issued by a substantial site, is automatically dismissed as mere campaigning/blogging assertions.
        This nonsense then gets enforced by fanatical pseudo-expert busybodies who convince themselves that they have some clear right to suppress others’ contributions to “their” particular pages of the wiki.
        And needless to say the corporates have $$MM resources with which to bully down any non-establishment contributors from the pages.
        The result is that an even more categoric illusion of certainty exists on wiki even more than in the (already blinkered) literature itself.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Robin:
        “Precedent” means already in the past. None of those you mention comes near to having affected as directly as HIV=AIDS the health and lifespan of millions of people, with expenditures of tens of billions of dollars.

  8. “came across a ‘wiki’ on ‘aids denialism’ and the tone of it is so obviously trying to support an unsupportable status quo for any rational thinking person that I can’t believe how many people easily fall for it”

    I beg to suggest that more people than you are notified of don’t fall for it. It is precisely when the controllers of such sites get carried away with their conceit that they start to score own goals such as Henry pointed out the other day. And what gets publicly presented can be very different from what people actually think “in private”.

  9. “None of those you mention comes near to having affected as directly as HIV=AIDS the health and lifespan of millions of people”

    I don’t think so. The amalgam scam has devastated millions but they are unregistered with you just as the aids hoax victims are unregistered with so many outside of here. Fluoride has harmed millions, and Lysenko’s pseudo-agriculture got well on the way towards starving the USSR to death!

    • Henry Bauer said

      Robin:
      We must agree to disagree

    • Frank said

      With the incidents you mentioned, there aren’t enormous billboards overlooking major thoroughfares in places like New York and L.A. saying things like, “Just get tested”, or “X in X amount of HIV positive people don’t know they’re HIV positive.” There were not documentaries like “The Lazarus Effect” and huge benefit concerts with the likes of Elton John, Liz Taylor, and Paul McCartney taking up the ’cause’ (which is what, exactly? to make sure people get extremely toxic drugs that are usually the cause of patient death rather than the so-called virus?)

      I’m trying to think of a scandal/health issue/calamity to match the scope of this in terms of public awareness and dogma being shoved down the public’s throat and I can’t. It is literally just one lie after another, one false piece of info after another, people on television spewing unfounded and unsubstantiated bits of information proclaiming them ‘facts’, ENDLESSLY paraded before our eyes and I actually think that the average person now mostly tunes out anything regarding HIV and AIDS, which I can’t decide if that’s a good thing or a bad thing at this point in terms of getting the truth out there.

      Understand, Robin, that I’m not trying to compare/contrast so much as figure out what the truth is up against here in relation to other instances where the truth does or does not prevail… I try to be optimistic, but to contrast two sayings – “If you tell a lie that’s big enough, often enough, people will believe it.” That’s the pessimistic side (isn’t that attributed to Goebbels, btw?)… the optimistic side says, “Lies run a good sprint, but the truth runs a great marathon.”

  10. Jas said

    Read the HIV/aids studies performed in the early 1990s. The explanation is clear, HIV/AIDS is a myth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s