HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Searching for truth at Harvard

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2011/02/20

Harvard Magazine published the standard sort of HIV/AIDS propaganda in its issue of September-October 2010, “The Social Epidemic — Battling HIV in sub-Saharan Africa”.  The piece is strong on local color and personal interest, a tribute to the “generous gift for international reporting” that enabled the author, associate editor Elizabeth Gudrais, to visit Tanzania, South Africa, and Uganda. But the article is woefully ignorant about HIV and AIDS, and this ignorance is reflected in such absurd repetitions of official nonsense as that 39% of KwaZulu-Natal residents “have HIV” and, in some places, “two-thirds of pregnant women have HIV”. First, of course, no test demonstrates the presence of “HIV infection”, only the presence of certain antibodies or bits of DNA or RNA. Second, the official early story of HIV/AIDS describes “HIV infection” as deadly, on average of about a decade after infection. As this article acknowledges, antiretroviral drugs treatment is still not available in most of sub-Saharan Africa. Those two mainstream assertions taken together would make it quite impossible that any country could have reached 39% infection, with a majority of pregnant women infected, without an earlier total collapse of the population — whereas the population of the whole region has continued to increase throughout the “AIDS” era  at a healthy (or unhealthy!) rate of several percent annually, without death rates rising noticeably [Rian Malan, “AIDS in Africa — In search of the truth”, Rolling Stone Magazine, 22 November 2001; “Africa isn’t dying of Aids”, The Spectator (London), 14 December 2003].
Gudrais’s “research” about HIV itself evidently consisted of being indoctrinated by the Harvard people who are, with the best but misguided intentions, bringing antiretroviral treatment to sub-Saharan Africa. Gudrais mention that many Africans stop coming for treatment, but fails to ask why this might be; yet anyone familiar with the literature would know that the dreadful “side” effects of antiretroviral drugs bring high drop-out rates also in the United States [“Avoiding life-saving treatment”, 2010/10/28].
I found it sad to read of the many well-meaning alumni, faculty, and students who are mentioned as having contributed time or funds to Harvard’s mission in Africa, which includes vaccine research. What reaction will there be from those who have been hoodwinked by officialdom for decades, once it becomes generally realized that HIV = AIDS is without a basis in fact? How will the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spin its long participation in this intellectual scam? How will the National Institutes of Health handle the fury of Congressional investigations after it is realized that NIH was actually a driving force in maintaining expensive programs that had long been discredited by the evidence, much of it published under NIH grants?

John Lauritsen wanted to give readers of Harvard Magazine the opportunity to think about these issues, but the concise, to-the-point letter he sent in August has not been published:

25 August 2010
Harvard Magazine
“The Social Epidemic: Battling HIV in sub-Saharan Africa” by Elizabeth  Gudrais (September-October 2010) echoes the prevailing myths about  “AIDS” in Africa, without ever coming to grips with the real issues. Although Africa has supposedly been devastated by “AIDS”, the population  in South Africa, Uganda and elsewhere on the continent has grown.  “AIDS” in Africa is not the same as “AIDS” in Europe and North America;  in both it is a new name for old diseases.  <>
The sad reality is that most people in Africa are poor — so poor they  can’t even get clean drinking water. The goal should be to eliminate  poverty and unsanitary living conditions, rather than providing  unvalidated “HIV” tests and harmful and worthless drugs.
The sub-article (“The Politics of Paying for HIV Care”) gets to the  point: “Harvard’s PEPFAR program has paid for antiretroviral therapy  (ART) for more than 130,000 people….” That is, profits for Big  Pharma. The drugs being marketed to Africa — AZT and Nevirapine — are  toxic and have no benefits demonstrated through honest, double-blind,  placebo-controlled studies.
To my knowledge there is no proof that “AIDS” is caused by HIV-1 (North  America and Europe), by HIV-2 (Africa), or by any other infectious  agent. If there is such proof, Harvard Magazine would do us all a  service by publishing an article stating the HIV-AIDS hypothesis in a  clear and falsifiable manner, marshalling evidence for that hypothesis,  and answering criticisms made by AIDS critics (dissidents/rethinkers)  like myself.

John Lauritsen
Harvard College Class of 1961 (AB 1963)
Author: _The AIDS War_ (1993)

17 Responses to “Searching for truth at Harvard”

  1. Martin said

    Hi Dr. Bauer, I’ll bet Bill Gates is probably smarter than the average joe. He’s certainly richer. But the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is as much a political (and politically correct) enterprise as it is a charitable one. Not only that, but for Bill Gates to openly declare that AIDS is a scam would be “suicide”. High-profile people like Gates (and unwitting celebrities) will jump off the AIDS bandwagon only when it’s safe to do so — no sooner. Harvard Magazine (and Harvard University) are both in the same predicament. We’ll just have to wait until there is been a public uprising not quite different from those taking place in the Middle East.

  2. Robin said

    Can we have one on searching for coconut-palm plantations in Antarctica too? It reminds me of recently when I was walking past the grand frontage of the “Wellcome” “Trust” in London and (while pointing at the building) said to a youngish man coming the other way “Neither welcome nor trustworthy”. The look of horror on his face…..

  3. artwest said

    OT but important,
    Dr.Bauer I’ve been coming to this site for some time, always with the “Web Of Trust” add on in Firefox and never had a problem before. Today, for the first time, WOT flagged up this site as dangerous. I wouldn’t be surprised if there has been an attempt by your opponents to distort the results at WOT.
    I thought you should know as having the site flagged as dangerous – with a huge notice which you have to actively click to ignore – will mean that many people won’t come here.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Thanks for the info, though I don’t know what to do about it. I’ll forward to the WordPress people.

      • artwest said

        It isn’t wordpress in general which has the rating as I’ve been to other wordpress sites with no problem, just yours.

        Web of Trust allows users to rate sites for Trustworthiness, Vendor reliability, Privacy and Child safety. In theory a site should only get a red rating for things like being a scam, using malware, misusing people’s information or very extreme porn.

        Absurdly, your site is red in all those categories. I don’t know how many people it would take to vote a site red in all those categories but it’s difficult to imagine that it would happen spontaneously.

        This is the page which deals with an erroneous rating.

        Smugly they seem to think that a site’s reputation can’t be manipulated and seem to want you to do all the work to clear up their mess.

      • Henry Bauer said

        The idea behind WOT seems to be the same fundamentally mistaken notion as is behind Wikipedia, namely, that inviting everyone to contribute will bring accurate information and evaluation. Instead, of course, — as any social psychologist would know, and as common sense based on just a bit of experience would indicate — on any controversial matter the fanatics commandeer the process, the people with fixed ideas who do nothing productive themselves but rant at anyone or anything that disagrees with them.
        The solution cannot be to work within their system and try to overcome the fanatics, because they are willing to spend more time on it. The solutino is not to use Wikipedia or Web of “Trust”.

      • Tony said

        WOT claims to have anti-manipulation logic built into their system, but it is painfully obvious that it isn’t working in this case — this has a rating suggesting this is a pornographic site, with poor privacy policy and egregious customer service. None of these make sense in this particular case. Of course, the WOT people may simply ignore any complaints, secure in their faith that they’ve protected against manipulation.

        Perhaps the best way to look at this would be to consider it a compliment — after all, if you’re such a threat that someone has to circumvent the anti-manipulation logic (however difficult that was) in order to prevent people from viewing your site, it seems clear that you’re making an impact. If it works here, I suspect we’ll see it for other dissident sites in the future.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Since computers or software can’t think, they are also incapable of recognizing intellectual deceit or manipulation. Wiki and WOT were obviously set up by computer geeks who understand nothing about matters in which human behavior plays a decisive role.

  4. Robin said

    I was just going to post my comment here but Henry has somehow managed to exactly pre-plagiarise it, including “solutino” which is one of the neologisms on which I hold an exclusive copyright for the next few years:

    “The idea behind WOT seems to be the same fundamentally mistaken notion……
    ……The solutino is not to use Wikipedia or Web of “Trust”.”

    Meanwhile, you could apply for certification by HON:
    Though tragically (cough) the system doesn’t seem to have caught on very extensively yet.

    • Henry Bauer said

      “HON”: another one!
      “solutino”: WordPress unfortunately doesn’t have spell-checking. That’s one area where computers and software can do better than humans, especially aging humans who never learned to type.

  5. Robin said

    Henry, Wiki could be OK if all editors were required to have public and verified identities. At present everyone can set up as many anon accounts as they fancy, to say nothing of having three PCs on a desk pretending to independently agree with one another. One of the founders resigned in disgust. The other, Jimmy Wales, has presumably decided to knowingly go along with the profit-making scam instead. Have a guess at how much are the covert bungs for “protecting” of thousands of bios and politically important pages. The wiki page pretending to be about Andrew Wakefield takes some beating for barefaced bias .

    • Henry Bauer said

      My mother liked to comment on something like this that her aunt would have been an omnibus if she had had wheels ….
      Of course you’re right, that having to stand up openly for what one says would get rid of the axe-grinders and character assassins. But these ventures, like so many blogs, are sustained largely by axe-grinders and character assassins who are ashamed to be identified.

  6. Gorky said

    Medical ‘science’ as demonology, or is that demonology as medical science?

    This modern-day demonology reaching its frenzied heights in post-apartheid South Africa, being pushed most rabidly by those with anti-apartheid credentials. And people think they get irony..

    It’s worth remarking as a matter of interest that whilst the word ‘demon’ is derived from the Greek daimónion, denoting a divine spirit or of a divine nature, before it evolved or devolved to become synonymous with an evil spirit; the Greek word does appear to have an earlier Hebrew root, namely
    ‘dimun’ (I am giving the English spelling only) meaning
    ‘image’. ‘LeDamyen’ means to imagine or to visualize in Hebrew. This is, dare I say it, rather profound. Men create demons in their own image, since images is what demons are, the literal meaning at least in terms of its deepest forgotten roots (no you won’t know this from Wikipedia).

    “HIV” is the definitive demon for the age of uh enlightenment (cough cough) and science. It is quite literally a case of the men of ‘science’ projecting and scapegoating onto nature society’s own demons, that is in terms of its deeper etymology, images of our psychoses, neuroses and cultural pathology.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Re irony, see the film VIVA ZAPATA and note how many revolutions turn into dictatorships themselves.
      Re HIV, I think Kary Mullis somewhere wrote that it is the modern equivalent of satanic influence, to be blamed for anything and everything

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