HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

How will the truth come out about HIV/AIDS?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2011/03/14

Several of my posts on this blog have grappled in one way or another with the central issue for Rethinkers: How might the general public, the media, the policy makers be awakened to the actual facts about “HIV” and about “AIDS”?  — Infiltrating the mainstream, 2011/01/09; Confusion worse confounded: Explaining AIDS Rethinking to non-thinkers, 2010/12/21;  Follow the money: Is HIV/AIDS fading away?, 2010/12/12; Skinning the HIV/AIDS cat, 2010/12/02;  Defeating HIV = AIDS, 2010/10/17;  Not with a bang but a whimper, 2009/12/27;  The cases against HIV: Strategies for halting the bandwagon, 29 July 2008;  Stopping the HIV/AIDS bandwagon — Part II, 1 February 2008;  How can the HIV/AIDS bandwagon be stopped?, 27 January 2008.

There is no hint of a consensus on this question among Rethinkers. I among others have come to believe that working within the established forums of medicine and science offers only long-forlorn hope; but other Rethinkers continue to try storming the citadels with manuscripts for publication in Establishment journals, and I take my hat off to those who keep trying, even as I think such direct assaults are unlikely to pay off. I see more hope in indirect attacks like those described recently that seem to offer real possibilities of eventually changing the climate of opinion among disciplines that encircle the HIV/AIDS establishment (Infiltrating the mainstream, 2011/01/09;  Skinning the HIV/AIDS cat, 2010/12/02).
In commenting on the latter, Robin  made important points, notably that it takes different approaches to persuade different folks: for instance, while some (in my view, very few) are concerned primarily with the best objective evidence, others are likely to think more in terms of human values.
In “Confusion worse confounded: Explaining AIDS Rethinking to non-thinkers”,  I argued that the necessary initial steps include making people understand that “HIV” and “AIDS” are two separate things, entirely separate things. Crucial to that first step is that “HIV” tests are highly non-specific tests, reacting “positive” to a range of physiological conditions that are not necessarily even health-threatening.
If someone can become persuaded that “HIV” tests do not detect a fatal virus, then the essential mission has been accomplished, because obviously then “HIV”, which can only be defined by means for detecting it, could never have become known to be the cause of “AIDS”. Even under the assumption that “HIV” exists, but that the tests detect many other things as well, any apparent correlation between positive “HIV” tests and AIDS would be spurious. As I point out in my book, relying on such highly non-specific tests would entail the absurd assumption that “true”-positive and false-positive tests always occur in the same proportion under all circumstances—with pregnant women, with gay men, with members of different racial groups, etc..

The fact that “HIV” tests do not specifically detect
an immune-system-damaging virus

suffices to disprove the claimed “HIV”-AIDS connection.

Purveying the truth about “HIV” tests is made easy by the fact that authoritative mainstream sources attest to it: for instance the manufacturers’ fine print that comes with test kits and the monograph chapter by  Stanley H. Weiss and Elliott P. Cowan, Chapter 8 in AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection, ed. Gary P. Wormser, 4th ed., 2004.
Admittedly there remains the obvious question, why the whole apparatus of practicing physicians and researchers rests its activities on invalid tests. This raises far-reaching historical, psychological, sociological issues; but in relation to the central point, that the tests do not detect “HIV”, this obvious question is irrelevant. How something could happen can be an interesting question, but when that thing did actually happen, not understanding how it came about doesn’t make it un-happen.
Another obvious and valid question, “So what is AIDS?”, can be answered as in Point 1 of the post, “Confusion worse confounded: Explaining AIDS Rethinking to non-thinkers”.

What I want to stress now is that the lack of validity of “HIV” tests suffices to make the Rethinking case, irrespective of the “existence” question, namely, whether such a virus as HIV even exists. Therefore I find it most regrettable that some number of Rethinkers insists that the existence question is central to Rethinking — and I find it more than unfortunate that disagreements over this have led to schisms and the squandering of much emotion and time.
Of course it is of great interest to find out whether “HIV” in some shape or form exists, and if so whether it is exogenous — at least on occasion — or endogenous; and if the latter, whether this makes “HIV” an HERV. But from the viewpoint of whether “HIV” tests detect an AIDS-inducing agent, these scientific questions are beside the point. The mistaken view that what the “HIV” tests detect leads to AIDS could have come about in a number of ways. For instance, if “HIV” exists, it might be a passenger virus, as Duesberg suggested. If “HIV” doesn’t exist, researchers might have been confused by HERVs and circulating DNA, as Etienne de Harven has pointed out. Either way, or any other way, it is not necessary to settle the existence issue in order to demonstrate that “HIV” tests do not diagnose “HIV infection” and do not presage AIDS.

55 Responses to “How will the truth come out about HIV/AIDS?”

  1. Matt said

    Dr Bauer,
    I think a good test would be to anonymously retest a representative sample of the present day hemophiliac population using the same antibody diagnostics screens used in the eighties. This “high risk” group was considered powerful evidence that AIDS was an infectious disease. The HIV crowd claimed that a significant number of hemophiliacs became HIV positive because the supplies they received were contaminated by HIV infected plasma donors.
    An original problem with this was that the titers were so low in infected donors and the dilution factor from combining plasma samples were so high that there was no way so many recipients could have turned up positive. Another problem was the manufacturing process included cryoprecipitation from which no retrovirus particle could survive. The process of extracting the clotting factor would effectively sterilize the samples.
    Now plasma collectors have strict screening protocols to eliminate high risk donors. If HIV testing reveals substantially high levels of positives (approx. equal to the original ’80s) within this group then this would indicate that the tests were invalid for detecting HIV infection. This group could not be rationalized as having other high risk factors (IV drug use, etc.).
    This outcome would also support the idea that HIV tests are nonspecific indicators of immune activation or dysfunction. I have no idea how to get the resources to set up this experiment and I’m certain that the HIV/AIDS establisment would have zero interest with conducting it. However, as has been pointed out on this site and others, HIV tests have already been proven to have frequent nonspecific reactions. This experiment would have post HIV screening control group that has the same preexisting health issues as the pre-HIV screening group.

  2. I don’t think that establishment channels (mainstream media, scientific publications) will end AIDS but they are important because they give heart and direction to rethinkers. Change will come from the bottom mainly, but it’s important for uncredentialled activists to know that there are people with credentials supporting them.

    • Henry Bauer said

      David Crowe:
      Very good point, thanks! (I may of course be biased since I am one of those who actually does keep trying. But then I also buy lottery tickets.)

  3. Jim said

    Dr. Bauer,
    I’m confused by what mean when you refer to the “existence issue”. Do you mean existence of HIV in the physical realm or the speculative, virtual realm? There doesn’t seem to be an “existential” issue here, it clearly exists in one or the other. Who “denies” that? To my way of thinking, the existence issue revolves around whether or not there exists convincing experimental proofs, experimental proofs that would move an idea, HIV, from the mind’s eye to the real world. For clarity, I’m referring to the HIV idea originally advanced by Montagnier/Gallo/Establishment, not other definitions offered by interlopers. Is it not the case that the best direct criticism of HIV tests follows logically from the flawed demonstration experiments conducted by Montagnier/Gallo? Who do you think deserves credit for first advancing these direct criticisms of the tests?

    • Henry Bauer said

      All good points, thank you.
      Even though there never was a demonstration of the physical existence of an exogenous, transmissible and infectious Human Immunodeficiency Virus, somehow the orthodoxy came to assert it with increasing force, to the extent that almost all media and almost all publics believe it.
      And a strong little cadre of non-believers in HIV/AIDS also insists that the central issue is the question of the physical existence of this entity, evidence for which is far weaker than for the physical existence of large unidentified creatures in Loch Ness 8)

      • Jim said

        Dr. Bauer,

        You say,”even though there never was a demonstration of the physical existence of an exogenous, transmissible and infectious human immunodeficiency virus”, but this view has “somehow” not been the battle cry of the most visible “ReThinkers”. Why is this so? Doesn’t changing the subject to tests, AIDS, redefined HIVs, and credentials only serve to further abuse the “publics” bamboozled by the State in league with elite economic interests? Please speak to these concerns.
        Kind Regards,

      • Henry Bauer said

        I agree with your points following “Doesn’t”.
        I don’t want to seem flippant, but it is the case that on many topics I find people not agreeing with me, with me not able to understand why. I don’t know why some Rethinkers have not realized that much of what they or we argue about is not an efficient way to influence the public. Part of the reason may be that it takes every one of us a while to wade through all the material and controversies. I wrote my book because I had seen that the epidemiology of positive HIV tests disproves the orthodox view irrespective of the reliability of the tests, so I didn’t inquire deeply into that (un)reliability until quite some time later, and then realized that this is the central point. Others too may have floundered around through focusing in different aspects, for example the consequences of antiretroviral treatments.

      • Sabine Kalitzkus said


        The orthodoxy did not “somehow c[o]me to assert it with increasing force”, but by way of deception, that “there never was a demonstration of the physical existence of an exogenous, transmissible and infectious Human Immunodeficiency Virus”. It was the never-ending repetition of Gallo’s/Montagnier’s lie that made “almost all media and almost all publics believe it”. Quite logically the public has to be informed that they have been deceived in that the physical existence of a particular entity is only fictitious until somebody would be able to prove its existence –– in addition the public has to be informed not about fictitious health risks, but about the real ones. I regard it as extremely unethical to keep the public in their orthodoxy-induced ignorance for another three or more decades. This is totally unacceptable.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Sabine Kalitzkus:
        I agree with your sentiment, but don’t see a feasible course of action to spur change. I also don’t know how deliberate or conscious the deception was or is. I don’t understand how all this could have happened, but it did, hence “somehow”.

    • Jim said

      Dr. Bauer,
      Let me express my sympathies. Like you said, “Part of the reason may be that it takes every one of us a while to wade through all the material and controversies”. Can you imagine how long it took me, a layman, struggling with all the biological jargon and the competing interests! I arrived at the “central point” several years before the publication of your book, slogging around on VirusMyth. Are you planning a second edition now that you have had the opportunity “inquire deeply”? Reading the references in your journal paper “HIV Tests are not HIV Tests” I was somewhat surprised that I didn’t see a reference crediting this previously published work(1993)in that it also depends on the “central point” as it relates to HIV tests.,
      or here
      Perhaps this was just an oversight on your part given the mountains of information we have had to wade through. I would like to compliment you on your original contributions regarding race and tests and an article bemoaning the suppression of science within science. From this I feel that people can count on you to maintain the highest standards of academic etiquette and ethics as we struggle on how best get the truth out. Hitting the lotto might help! 🙂

      • Henry Bauer said

        I appreciate the kind words.
        I simply don’t have a comprehensive overview of the dissident literature, one reason being that I’m a Johnny-come-lately, getting into it only about 2004 and therefore not having followed at the time all the stuff written in the twenty years before that. Another reason is that I never set out to research HIV/AIDS, I fell or was drawn into it by just wanting to check a reference in Harvey Bialy’s book that dealt specifically with HIV epidemiology. So that was the basis for my book, and I’ve slowly and fairly steadily learned about other aspects of this business, very largely through people like yourself who tell me about things I ought to have known.

        As to a second edition: publishers decide that, not authors! My highest priority now is to get my next book into print, I’m awaiting the copy-edited text. A long-term project that is taking forever is trying to assemble central references on all the important aspects of HIV/AIDS. Anotherr eason for my not knowing about much of that literature is that there’s no single place that indexes the literature by topic.

  4. realpc said

    Luc Montagnier has been researching the homeopathic concept of water memory. I think AIDS has baffled scientists because they do not accept, or even know about, water memory. They are always looking at chemicals and molecules, seldom at the electromagnetic, informational aspects of organisms.

    A dramatic change needs to happen in mainstream science, and I believe it is getting closer. Non-physical information is central to all life processes, yet is practically ignored by the mainstream. Look into alternative science if you want possible explanations for AIDS.

    It is very encouraging that Montagnier is going in this direction.

    But water memory won’t be accepted until enough researchers have found convincing evidence. How to convince the mainstream that HIV does not cause AIDS, and HAART is useless and toxic? I think reason and evidence is the only way to go.

    Yes, people believe a lot of ridiculous things. But that is only because they have not seen or heard contradictory evidence.

    • Henry Bauer said

      I don’t think there’s any good evidence for water memory in the Montagnier-Benveniste-homeopathic sense. I had the opportunity to talk with Benveniste about his work, and his apparatus for detecting and sending electromagnetic signals was missing the most vital component, namely, frequency discrimination.

      • realpc said

        Then why is there so much evidence? Of course there is placebo effect involved in homeopathy, as in everything, but I don’t believe people are as foolish as the materialist “skeptics” claim. Research in water memory and in subtle energies makes sense to me, based on everything I know about alternative science. But I am not a chemist or physicist so if you have found serious defects in the research, I don’t have the expertise to argue. But it’s your opinion against theirs.

        Water memory and subtle energies would help explain a lot of things that materialist science cannot, including AIDS.

      • Henry Bauer said

        I’m not aware of any, let alone much, good evidence for water memory of this sort. I don’t think this is a matter of one opinion versus another, the evidence is simply not there because the purported data were obtained by incompetent experimentation.
        I don’t see, either, how “subtle energies” coould explain anything given that they are “subtle” because they have been undetectable.

  5. realpc said

    “I don’t see, either, how “subtle energies” coould explain anything given that they are “subtle” because they have been undetectable.”

    They are not detected by the existing instruments. Radio waves existed before we could detect them. However, there are subtle energies researchers who claim to have the required instruments. They cannot publish in mainstream journals because mainstream journals are currently materialist.

    ” the purported data were obtained by incompetent experimentation.”

    It was incompetent according to James Randi! Do you realize believe him instead of Benveniste?

    • Henry Bauer said

      I can’t help it if Randi happens to be right about something or other occasionally.
      “Claims” from subtle-energy researchers cannot substitute for demonstrated evidence.

  6. Francis said

    Henry, you should talk to the “Dark Matter” pundits about “Subtle Energies”

    Not seen, heard or felt but none the less now mainstream science in Cosmology. It seems to have been “invented” to rationalise other theories. There even appears to be a strong “Consensus” amongst the Cosmologists about its existence.

    Sorry, I’m just having a Deja-vu moment.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Very pertinent. But the dark-matter theorists are at least trying to explain tangible and reproduced and reproducible observations. And you’re right that consensus in the mainstream is not proof.

  7. BornSkeptic said

    I believe the best route is through the courts. The scientific and medical profession will NEVER admit to such a catastrophe. These people NEVER admitted to using a few dozen black people as guinea pigs in a mere single syphilis experiment, why on Earth would they admit to scamming the entire population of the planet and terrorizing them for 30 years. The best solution is to use the courts to get these scam artists under oath and to prove their claims. Once they testify, their words under oath can then be distributed to the public. We need someone who has been monetarily harmed by this garbage science, much like the boxer recently on your web site. Too bad he is not wealthy.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Someone who has been physically harmed would also do, and several Rethinkers are on the lookout for a suitable case to lodge.

  8. Jim said

    I agree with you that epidemiological approach certainly reveals that there is a serious problem with the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. To know that there is a problem does not explain why? It allows one to smell a rat, so to speak, but where is the dirty bugger? 🙂 Unfortunately, for the curious, criticism of the experiments claimed to demonstrate “HIV” have been stifled by other interests that openly endorse the “discovery” as well as the efficacy of the “tests”, . Groups and institutions that benefit from the politicized science of the dominant theory have had both a red herring and a whipping boy in one package serving to protect established dogma. The result of this can hardly be characterized as “harmless”! Hopefully, you are able to deal with the fact that there are two groups of gatekeepers re “HIV” in your new book. This presentation prepared for the South African Muslim community is somewhat dated but offers 146 central references dealing with both epidemiology and what we agree is the “central point”. If may be of some help to you.

    Click to access The_HIV_AIDS_Question.pdf


    • Henry Bauer said

      Thanks for the book link. I take it this is used in some sort of teaching, since it seems not to be a published work. And it is entirely from an orthodox — i.e., wrong! — viewpoint.
      “Why?” could be addressed at several different levels of generality. Part III of my book describes some of the most immediate mis-steps. Part II sets a specific part of a wider context, namely the uncertainties of progress. And there are broader contexts as well, as you indicate.

    • Sabine Kalitzkus said

      Jim, discriminating and insulting statements like the following from page 74 don’t serve anybody, neither in the West nor in Africa, do they?

      … this is also a smoke screen to vindicate the unnatural practice of homosexuality. The fact is that the outcome of homosexual promiscuity is an immune deficiency, and therefore an extraordinary unveiling of the sickness of the practice. It is contra-natura: it makes you ill. But by blaming a virus, everyone is made to seem at risk. (Emphasis by Muhammad Dalmau.)

      This statement is only an extraordinary unveiling of the sickness of Mr. Dalmau’s mind and his homophobic hatred of gays.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Sabine Kalitzkus, and Jim:
        Now I’m very glad I hadn’t read further into Dalmau’s essay!
        But Dalmau’s homophobia also illustrates a sad fact of life, that people can be perfectly correct on one issue and sadly mistaken on another. That’s what accounts for finding “strange bedfellows” in all sorts of sociopolitical movements, and it also underscores how wrong invoking guilt by association is: that someone is wrong about any given issue doesn’t mean they are wrong about others. Kalichman may well be very nice to cats and old ladies, for example.

      • Sabine Kalitzkus said

        Henry and Jim,

        There are seven references to Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos’ papers and she’s mentioned twice in the text. This is from page 56:

        A particularly interesting and thorough study on the evidence regarding AZT and Nevirapine and mother-to-child transmission has been conducted by a brilliant group of scientists from Perth, Western Australia. (146) One of them, E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, has also been responsible for one of the most scientifically elegant explanations of immune deficiency by the oxidative effect of immune suppressants. (23)

        I must agree with Mr. Dalmau. Eleni’s explanations of immune deficiency are much more elegant than his own ones. Though he appears to have read Eleni’s work (selectively at least), his scheme of gay- and drug-addicts-bashing causes him to miss important points.

        On page 45 he says:

        Very important to the pathogenesis of AIDS is the homosexual practice of anal intercourse, regarded as immune-suppressive due to the oxidative effect of semen that brings foreign proteins directly into the blood stream by rectal absorption.

        Receptive anal intercourse isn’t regarded as immune-suppressive due to the oxidative effect of semen, but due to the immune-suppressive effect of semen. The culprits being among others for example the prostaglandins, as Quayle, Kelly et al. explained in their 1989 paper Immunosuppression by seminal prostaglandins.

        In his exhaustive conclusions Dalmau says on page 77:

        “Immune Deficiency: only in the USA and Europe is the immune deficiency produced by immune suppression. This immune suppression is self-induced by unnatural sexual practices, prescription and recreational drug abuse, intravenous toxicomania. …”

        “Toxicomania”. Well, okay. And on page 79:

        “After what we have said, if there is indeed any AIDS in Africa it must be from the U.S.-European type of AIDS risk disease group, meaning: young male homosexuals, male intravenous drug-users, young female intravenous drug-users.”

        We are pleased to learn that a) sniffed cocain, smoked crack, extasy, marihuana etc. are good for your health in that they are not used intravenously; and b) older male homosexuals, all female drug users other than the intravenous ones and all other women of any age are perfectly healthy in that they never engage in the “unnatural homosexual practise of anal intercourse”, which is only practised by young US or European homosexual men.

        Women of any age who practise the “unnatural homosexual practise of anal intercourse” and suffer from a compromised immune system do not exist in Dalmau’s universe.

        Unfortunately for Mr. Dalmau as early as 1984 in their study Chronic Immune Stimulation
        by Sperm Alloantigens
        Mavligit et al. presented a heterosexual couple (married, husband and wife), who regularly practised anal intercourse. Thus the wife had a compromised immune system.

        Even more embarrassing for Mr. Dalmau is the little message on page 5 of the study, which says:

        “While the practice of passive anal-genital intercourse was found to be the most significant risk factor, the practice of oral-genital contact of various types was inconsequential.”

        Isn’t the oral-genital contact a kind of a contact homosexual men are enjoying frequently and happily?

        Yes, Kalichman is nice to cats and Hitler loved dogs. This doesn’t mean that they are/were respectable human beings.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Sabine Kalitzkus:
        Many thanks for this deconstruction, I’m glad to be off the hook of feeling the need to wade through Dalmau’s whole script.
        Incidentally, your excellent point that smoked drugs can be just as harmful as injected ones reminds me of the mainstream’s obsession with providing addicts with clean needles, as though the contents of the needles were harmlesss and only their possible contamination with “HIV” were dangerous.

      • Jim said

        Dr. Bauer, Sabine,

        I must admit that this HIV/AIDS fiasco is a nettlesome affair. I find and share an article written for homophobic-by-faith Muslims that does an excellent job of explaining how the tests are an integral part of the flawed demonstration experiments of Gallo/Montagnier and encounter people who are unwilling separate the wheat from the chaff! Good Lord, it doesn’t require particularly keen powers of observation to realize that most socially conservative religious people both Christian and Muslim have great difficulty dealing with the fact of homosexuality. This is regrettable and I certainly wish it were otherwise, but PULEEZE let’s not forget context, this is a blog on HIV/AIDS skepticism and specifically “how will the truth come out”. I humbly submit that any effort to expose “HIV” for the fraud that it is, especially to people who may wish it to “be” for religious or psychological reasons, is a step in the right direction. Are we to insist that the world first be cleansed of homophobia and racism as a precondition for the quashing of the idea “HIV”? Dalmau does a good job explaining that PROMISCOUS anal intercourse in conjunction with myriad other infections, prophylactic use of antibiotics, AZT, nitrate inhalants may be hazardous to one’s health and that it doesn’t have anything to do with a virus. From this one can see that it isn’t even a homosexual issue. Consider the health risks a heterosexual women engaging in similar activities may face! My brother also went on a politically correct hissy fit when I tried to explain the simple broken health through oxidative stress theory of AIDS sans “HIV”. Dr. Bauer, Sabine, now that we all have assumed the “correct” posture can we appreciate Dalmau’s contribution on it substance as it relates to matter we are discussing. The substance being that his relatively short article rounds up a lot of disparate information in one place and is organized and written in such a manner that makes the whole issue more accessible to intelligent laymen. Contrast this to the bits and pieces scattered all over the place on the internet.

      • Henry Bauer said

        I already said that people can be right on one thing and wrong on others, clearly referring to Dalmau as right about HIV/AIDS and wrong about homosexuality. Still, one is free to look to other sources for criticism if Dalmau’shomophobia is too offensive. Also, not all Muslims or Christians are homophobes.

      • Sabine Kalitzkus said


        I didn’t mean to be politically correct. If I happen to appear that way, I apologize about this.

        Dalmau does a good job explaining that PROMISCOUS anal intercourse in conjunction with myriad other infections …

        Well, this is the reason why I can’t agree with his essay. This is exactly my point. He spares no effort to blame (homosexual) promiscuity –– as if monogamous semen loses its immunosuppressive and oxidizing properties all of a sudden. That’s why I mentioned the married couple from the 1984 Mavligit study, apparently a monogamous couple, since there were only monogamous couples in this study –– 14 monogamous couples of homosexual men and this married couple, husband and wife.

  9. Francis said

    Henry, I agree totally. This branch of science is trying to explain an observed cosmic phenomenon. Much as did early AIDS scientists, I think. Where they differ is how the latter have elevated their science to a religion, with about as much proof as the theologians have for the existence of God.

    I’m yet to see a website called or hear someone called a Dark-matter Denialist.

  10. Jim said

    Dr Bauer,
    I have to assume that you must have just taken a superficial glance at the intro of this 89 page, large print pdf, hardly a book regardless of what the link implies! The article first orients the reader by setting out the orthodox view then proceeds to trounce the established HIV/AIDS paradigm with some of the best explanations for the intelligent lay reader I have seen to date. Your comment does this teaching article a disservice.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Sorry, I hadn’t read far enough or scanned the citations carefully enough to find the Perth Group and Duesberg and Rasnick ones.

  11. Jessica said

    I was wondering whether a good way to expose the HIV/AIDS theory is through courts of law. I think Valendar Turner was the person who says that in a court of law, the mainstream evidence for HIV being the cause of AIDS won’t be useful to win the case.

    In Germany there is a very interesting case. German singer Nadja Benaissa (of the group No Angels) was accused in court supposedly by having passed the HIV to another person. Virologist, microbiologist and AIDS expert Dr.Josef Eberle ( who examined the case said in court that it’s “highly probable” that Benaissa actually passed the virus to his partner. She’s now facing a possible sentence of 10 years in jail.

    Recently (December, 2010), virologist and AIDS critic Stefan Lanka accused Dr.Eberle in court by making false statements about Benaissa’s case. (Lanka’s statement is in German here:

    I don’t think Lanka’s action in court will change anything. The AIDS establisment will win. But perhaps doing actions like these will help to get the attention needed in order to dismantle (in some remote future) the official AIDS theory.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Several people are actively looking for the chance to lodge a suitable court action, or to assist someone falsely charged with an “HIV”-related crime or someone harmed by antiretroviral treatment.

    • Sabine Kalitzkus said


      Lanka’s move won’t change anything, that’s for sure. At the beginning of his epic he said that he brought charges against Prof. Eberle because of his unsworn false statement. Later in this tale of 4,600 words he accused and insulted every living creature on earth except for the myriads of on German soil living ants of almost every possible crime in general, and of the “intentional crime of perjury” in particular, using the harshest, sharpest, most insulting words he could find. That’s certainly not the way to help Nadja out of her problems and to win a court case. It will make her problems worse. If you have friends like this, you don’t need enemies.

      But thanks for linking to this page. I followed a link where the Robert Koch Institute “commented” on the critisism of the Perth Group. It’s just the same procedure of “refuting” like the one from the US governmental agencies. Nobody has written this comment, no name on the website, no name on the paper, no name in the properties of the PDF, not one single reference. Anonymous claims and statements. Business as usual.

  12. Gene said


    I appreciate your analysis and extensive treatment of the epidemiology of HIV testing.

    I get it – very subtle and clever what you do with “their numbers”. But ultimately this is why your castle is built on sand – it’s their numbers! They have been supplied by a greatly compromised “epidemiology” where analysts are denied access to raw data by CDC (or ASSA) policies.

    So there’s always the reasonable chance of the official point of view being rescued from your debunking by “massaging the numbers one more time”.

    Thus, as with the ASSA of South Africa, media and public becomes MORE, not less confused.

    This great doubt, that you and Crowe can’t escape without more obfuscation and “emotional handwaving”, hangs over your position like a looming storm cloud.

    The objections of the “no proof of HIV side” to this typical handwaving keep the discussion scientifically grounded and beyond the reach of the other sides machinations. This is not groupthink from the no-proof side. I’m talking about getting it to the level of the Solvay Conferences of early twentieth century physics. And as far away from politicking based on soft science that the other side can make even softer to win the war. (At its best – this confusion of math models with surveillance-based epidemiology – can be called a soft science.)

    So the “no-proof of HIV position” has no drawbacks but seems to get in the way of the “political dissidents” who endlessly search for the correct talking points to place in people’s heads. How many times does this have to backfire to get everyone aligned with the only scientific resolution* of the problem? Why are the “political dissidents” endlessly interfering with this most fruitful idea for actually winning the fight? What is this emotionalism that halts the progress of discussions in their tracks?

    Look at Tommy Morrison’s public call (and both Montreal Gazette threads) for a direct measurement of “HIV” ex vivo. Why should this confuse anybody? What’s so hard here?**

    I say our fundamental criticism remains evaded by means of a false sense of political expediency that’s set back understanding of “retroviral phenomena”. As always, without adequate review of experiments performed in this field, dissidents will continue to chase around the same ol’ circles.

    *Maybe an analogy with the history of quantum mechanics helps. There were the many debates LASTING DECADES because the participants agreed on one thing – keep the discussion moving forward over the meaning of quantum theory. BTW, it’s still not settled: did Bohr or Einstein “win”? And over the decades until now, nonspecialists have come to an understanding of the debate on quantum mechanics.

    **Why? Because everyone likes a good fight.

    • Henry Bauer said

      I invite readers to form their own judgment of your (in)coherence.
      I puzzled for a while over being asked to defer a “necessary reply” — did you mean I needed to reply, but later? That’s what I took it to mean, anyway and obviously.
      But still, even after due reflection, I don’t grasp what points you are trying to make, though of course I catch your general drift, which is without foundation.
      What I’ve done in my book is to show that the official data are epidemiologically incompatible with the official theory. That has stood the test of several years, and no amount of massaging those data could alter that conclusion without accepting the view that HIV tests are fatally non-specific and unreliable.
      Tommy Morrison exemplifies my view: since the HIV tests are invalid, he should never have been pronounced infected and prevented from continuing his career. His pleas are overtly directed toward the issue of testing.
      Your quantum-mechanics analogy also supports my view: there’s no point arguing over the “existence” question since the invalidity of the tests, universally agreed, suffices to destroy the mainstream view.
      When ad hominem comments come in, I usually censor them. It becomes a dilemma when the ad hominem is directed at me. So I decided to let it through this time, but I do point out that you don’t know what my motives are or what my relationship is with David Crowe, and it is an unfounded inference — incidentally, a wrong one — that my decisions are influenced by whether or not David Crowe would approve.
      What need is there to “reconcile” my “views with Ruggiero”? He and I respect one another and we are open with one another. We agree that HIV/AIDS theory is wrong and that its consequences have severely injured huge numbers of people. That agreement suffices for productive collaboration. Do we have to agree on every other detail? Do you agree in every detail with all the others who insist that “the existence question” is paramount?

  13. Gene said

    Henry my good friend,

    I trust you can simply put up my post without a necessary reply from you.

    Be spontaneous about it, don’t be thinking of what Crowe wants you to do.

    Of course, when you reflect on what I’m saying and take some time if you have too (as Bohr did with Einstein), your reply will be most welcome.

    Thank you.

  14. BornSkeptic said

    Slightly off topic, but worthy of note, that . . . Liz Taylor . . . died today. She and . . . Bono are probably more responsible than anyone else for turning HIV into some sort of warped religious movement, much like Scientology or the Moonies. Why can’t these . . . entertainers just GO AWAY and leave us alone. They latch onto these grand issues just to keep their . . . faces in front of the camera and in the newspapers. Taylor claims she took up HIV after her dear friend Rock Hudson supposedly died of the mysterious virus, yet Hudson was a medical mess. It’s hardly clear what he died of, least of all some virus of questionable existence. For them, it is just one more chapter in their shallow existence . . . before the camera. . . narcissistic a-holes.

    • Gorky said

      Oh please that’s ridiculous — blaming an actress (no matter how famous) for the social myth of HIV, HIV/AIDS hysterics and its hold in society. Taylor meant well, how was she to know any better? She, like the general public, assumed the NCI, NIH, FDA knew what they were doing. Why expect her to think and know otherwise? She’s no more to blame than the young ten-year-old girl I met in London a few years ago, who offered to paint my portrait for a pound, to raise money for some HIV/AIDS “charity” in Africa organised through her church.

      Taylor — unlike many of today’s celebrities — actually contributed to some noteworthy causes (outside of HIV/AIDS I mean). Not her fault that her well-meaning efforts on HIV/AIDS were misguided and misused by AIDS Incorporated. Why not blame the gangsterism of the science journals and the censorship of the MSM re HIV/AIDS on Taylor? Also to think that she had this staggering influence on the cultural Zeitgeist and attitudes of our age — inseparable from the HIV/AIDS fiasco itself — is simply absurd.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Gorky, BornSkeptic:
        Gorky puts my own view very well: it is not the fault of the celebrities that the path to Hell is paved with their (and others’) good intentions.
        Gorky: What is “MSM”? Using acronyms has become irritatingly common, and I was shocked to learn this morning that even the Oxford English Dictionary now lists some of them (LOL, FYI, OMG). Is modern life really so rushed that we haven’t time to write whole words?

      • Gorky said


        The Manhattan School of Music of course. Their role in formenting this AIDS fiasco is considerable. No kidding aside, it stands for…

        The Miami Sound Machine. We all know how that Cuban-American music group fronted by Gloria Estefan helped to promote the AIDS folly. Uh then again maybe not. OK all joking aside now (for real), MSM stands for (in this context)…

        Mainstream Media.
        It’s funny I used to feel the same way as Bauer about all these new acronyms that the blogosphere coined. What on earth are people talking about? Why can’t they just type out the words? And then when you read enough blogs, you end up adopting their ways! You become a blogpodperson, or a blogpodder (I think that’s a neologism I just coined, maybe it will take off, maybe not).

        Just you wait Bauer, the blogsnatchers will see you becoming one of them in short order. You will be ending your posts with ROFLOL soon enough. Resistance is futile.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Brevity and humor will get you almost anything on this blog.

  15. Gene said

    Hey dude,

    One way or another this is going to get public …

    BTW, how do you reconcile your views with Ruggiero?

    And what is this great fear of dialogue after reflection – a qualification to sit on RA’s Board?

  16. Hear, hear, to that Henry. After too many years in the mix and out… I have come to conclusions about what is getting the best results both for educating the masses and for my own psychological peace. As bucking heads with the system is enough to make you go crazy at times. Especially when bucking heads with some of the sociopaths that are part of the machine.

    And as I have said a million times before… Claiming that HIV does not exist does absolutely no one justice. Whether it is true or not. It doesn’t really seem that it will ever be validated or proven. And even if it could be validated — well, it would likely be disqualified again as it has so many times already. But as you can see… No one with an Electron Microscope is even willing to go near it! Kinda seems like a futile pursuit that has us digging a very deep hole as quacks if you ask me.

    That’s kind of odd I know coming from someone (me) Who has been diagnosed yet they have never found HIV in my bloodstream. And that’s from the mainstream, mind you. And they did search for it in my three pregnancies when they tried to force me onto drugs. They couldn’t succeed simply because there was NO HIV in my blood. My children of course are negative. So how do you explain that I am positive which completely dismantles their bullshit mainstream theory… well, believe me, they come up with explanations for that too, yet have never found a solid one or any proof for why I am the way that I am outside of some bullshit theories.

    As I have explained on several occasions, no one theory outside of maybe faulty tests can explain away this false hypothesis. ‘Cause it all depends on the patient you are looking at. The Perth Group could very well look at me and say HIV does not exist. Just as the mainstream can look at someone with a myriad of diseases and point at their diseased cells and say yes THAT is HIV. Which is of course why I believe HIV IS A MIS-DIAGNOSIS.

    Makes me wonder how much time “some” people have spent trying to explain to people who are really sick what is actually wrong with them by saying their disease doesn’t exist. Of course I believe some of the illness exists in the mind, but some of it also exists in the mis-diagnosis. Ever try getting an HIV doc to actually find out what’s really wrong with you? From what I hear it’s practically impossible.

    On my site you can see representations of how many so-called co-infections are true infections made stronger as a result of the drugs… for example CMV is a thing A LOT of people live with and have been exposed to yet have no physical representation of… but if you happen to get the flu or pneumonia and are put on corticosteroids it can lower your immunity to the point that these common and non-harmful things can become deadly. Then of course you now have an AIDS diagnosis and they say, Oh you have now become susceptible to your co-infection. And once again the drugs have now manifested a real illness and you are now really dying of it — but it’s written off as your original illness.

    Oh yes, this is a huge massive Pandora’s box that no one will be able to properly pinpoint as long as these faulty tests are allowed to mis-diagnose not only healthy people, but sick people too.

    Let’s reflect… exactly how far has claiming HIV doesn’t exist gotten us? And do I really need to list the derogatory labels we have received because of this theory? How many HIV/AIDS patients have been lost to a theory that is practically impossible for their minds to process?

    Now as someone who is HIV-positive and has been fed 20 years of propaganda to go to them and say all this science is completely wrong and they have been lying to us, or they have planted it to kill people, or it just doesn’t exist… Hmmm… why might they come to the conclusion that I might be in denial? Kinda hard to swallow if you don’t already have a discerning mind don’tcha think? Especially if you happen to be talking to some of the people who still believe in the medical industry or maybe it’s a doctor and you’re trying to convince them why they shouldn’t feed your child toxic drugs that it doesn’t need. It really is a FUTILE and DANGEROUS argument.

    On the other hand though as someone who spends much time educating doctors and lay persons I have found ways to open their minds without completely sounding like a crazy conspiracy theorist. To a lay person I simply state… I am HIV-positive, have never been sick, and have given birth to 3 negative children… Now according to the propaganda you have been fed is that supposed to be possible? Now you have a real platform to speak from. ‘Cause yes, according to the mainstream propaganda, sick or not, being HIV-positive I should not be able to have negative (3) children. My partners should not be negative.

    When talking to a Doctor to pull out the myriad of evidence on mitochondrial DNA dysfunction, then to also pull out a myriad of documents on what health issues mitochondrial DNA dysfunction is responsible for is a far better way to state my case than claiming HIV doesn’t exist. I mention to future parents… that right there is the difference between being seen as intelligent and crazy. That right there is the difference between having a valid case… and having your children removed from you for endangerment.

    So, yes, as someone who has lived this hypocrisy to extents that many with HIV cannot even comprehend has proven to me that claiming HIV DOES NOT EXIST is FUTILE!!!

    So yes… we can prove the tests are faulty. There would be no such thing as a false positive if such were not the case. There would not be people like me who have no HIV in their blood being diagnosed as HIV-positive. There would not be healthy people walking around living full lives without drugs, just as there would also be many people who might get properly diagnosed and have their lives saved if these tests were fixed. Just thinking of those who die of malaria and tuberculosis because they get treated for HIV as an example.

    So yes… Henry I am with you… if we want to make waves we should hold an extravagant funeral for the theory that HIV does not exist… and officially put it to rest… and start moving towards some theories that have the potential to get us somewhere. I would be happy to facilitate this funeral at this year’s conference.

    Yours in the struggle!

  17. Gene said

    Thanks Henry for not ignoring me – much appreciated!

    However and but …

    My fundamental point is that there’s some strange influence, Crowe or whatever, that after all these years of correspondence between us, you still put me in a “holding bin, awaiting moderation”.

    When I explained the nuts and bolts of PCR measurement to you, was any form of “moderation” required?

    My first response to your fHIV work was positive, as above, not ad hominem.

    You can’t see that I’m comparing your thesis for purposes of vulnerability to the other side’s debunking?

    Impossible to debunk is a scientific fact – there’s no proof of an entity that has the phenotype of an immune-system destroying virus. Those phenotypic characteristics would represent a physical constant that could be directly measured in someone like Tommy Morrison – NOT JUST PART OF THE GENOME + ANTIBODIES. I.e. does the whole entity have an existence in his body?




    Look, I heard the Duke speak in Harlem, NYC and talked with him and his wife afterward. It’s clear that they got it from the get-go years ago, that “no proof of HIV’s existence” is easily comprehended by lay people.

    So once again I’ll say it, not as an ad-hominem, but concerning the burden of proof on two things. It’s on RA (or its board members acting independently of RA) to prove to the world that they are interested in following through on scientific methodology when it comes to the vexing subject of “retroviruses” and the Human Genome Project*. AND, disprove to the “strong cadre” that RA has politicized the science no different from AIDStruth.

    It’s sad Henry, really sad that you’ve picked politics over truth. I’m not rejoicing that you’ve proven every point made on RA’s politics of losing the war. So you tell the world that you find my prompting to engage – REALLY ENGAGE the “no proof of HIV side” – incoherent. Sorry guy, but this is so typical of Crowe-think.

    Your reply is political, not scientific.

    Plain English eh?

    Science, real scientific method is about moving the discussion forward, even if it’s over decades; hence the example from the history of quantum physics.

    Look, I get it – we all fall in love with our own ideas – all too human as the saying goes.

    But there is such a thing as absolute physical law, under which the phentotype of the most pathogenic virus ever claimed is a physical constant, by definition.

    Why do you think this is so hard, I’m simply baffled that reasonable people can think such a thing? Thus I make a critical – not an uncritical inference or ad hominem attack – inference based on known history …


    *A lot of very smart people think this HGP is a pretty big deal!

    • Henry Bauer said

      Every comment goes into a “holding bin, awaiting moderation”: that’s WordPress procedure. I don’t sit at my computer all day long so that I can look at everything in the bin immediately it comes in. YOur comments are treated just like any of the others.
      In this instance, with the warning that this one is the last such long and incoherent one that will be accepted (and BTW you are far from the first one to have received such a warning).

      The “some strange influence, Crowe or whatever” is in your head only.

      What is really simple, clear and direct, as to “the existence issue”, is this:
      One cannot prove a negative.
      How do you imagine the general public reacts to an insistence that the existence of “HIV” has never been proven? With a great big yawn. So what? The experts respond that their drugs work, QED.

      On the other hand, that even a mainstream monograph (Wormser) states — in the chapter by Weiss and Cowan — that there is no gold standard HIV test, that no such test can diagnose or confirm the presence of HIV, and that false positives are common in low-prevalence populations — that’s simple, direct, clear, and meaningful, consequential, suitable for winning court cases.

  18. Martin said

    Hi Dr Bauer, I really don’t think it takes a genius intelligence to comprehend this stuff. What I think it takes is a dose of curiosity and a dose of courage to open one’s mind to new ideas. A skeptical mind helps, too. But I think a key is a person has to be interested enough to look. I believe the general public is not interested (maybe because they’re not affected). Only time will tell.

  19. Jessica said

    Just a couple of comments. Even though I’m largely favourable to Dr.Bauer’s competent AIDS research and information in this blog, I’d like to make some remarks.

    Dr.Bauer comments that “one cannot prove a negative”.

    As an student of philosophy, I can say that it is demostrably not true. You can prove a negative proposition in exactly the same way that you can prove a positive proposition. In fact, each time we prove a positive proposition (e.g. human beings exist) we’re proving the falsehood of its negation (like: human beings don’t exist). Hence it is logically possible to prove a negative. This point about “proving negatives” is explained by this logician and epistemologist:

    Also, it’s possible to prove a negative proposition proving a positive proposition empirically incompatible with the negative claim. For example, I can prove that Henry Bauer wasn’t born in Germany proving that He was born in USA. I’m proving a proposition which implies the falsehood of another (negative and empirically incompatible) proposition.

    Also, it’s possible to prove a negative empirical proposition when the evidence for a positive proposition is missing AND we’d expect specific evidence to be there. For example, I can prove that “Dr.Bauer doesn’t have a 20cm blue knife in his stomach” through a CT scan of his stomach. If such knife were there, it would be visible. So it if’s not visible, then it’s positive empirical evidence for the nonexistence of such knife in his stomach.

    Certainly, some claims (negative or positive) cannot be proved with 100% certainty (in fact, most claims in science, specially the universal ones, cannot be proved with certainty). But they can be “proved” with some degree of empirical plausibility.

    In the case of HIV, if it exists, we would expect certain kinds of evidence to be there:

    1-It would be observable

    2-They could be isolated and photographed.

    We won’t find this evidence. And given that we’d expect such evidence given the existence of HIV, the absence of such evidence is evidence of absence in this particular case. So, we’re entitled to think that such virus don’t exist and this is why it hasn’t been isolated. So the “HIV doesn’t exist” is a plausible scientific explanation for the lack of evidence for its existence.

    Finally, Dr.Bauer says:

    “How do you imagine the general public reacts to an insistence that the existence of “HIV” has never been proven? With a great big yawn. So what? The experts respond that their drugs work, QED”

    Such reply by “experts” would fully exposed their inconsistences. In science, you cannot prove the existence of an entity X simply arguing that the belief “X exists” works. Such pragamatism is not valid evidence for virus’ isolation.

    In the Margoba vs. The Perth Group debate, when Margoba appealed to a kind of pragmatic point like that, Val Turner replied: “it is scieintifically impossible to use treatment as a criteria for diagnosis. (Otherwise we might have to conclude that heart failure for example is due to deficiency of foxglove). I do not believe that pragmatism has any place in discovering scientific truths.”

    Hence, arguing that anti-HIV drugs “work” is not valid scientific evidence that HIV exists (even if it actually exists). Such pragmatic reply would expose the extreme weakness of the “experts”‘s case for HIV.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Thanks for the clarification.
      I should have said that one cannot prove empirically the non-existence of something like a human immunodeficiency virus. That we “would expect” certain kinds of evidence if it exists makes the non-existence an inference, of perhaps increasingly high probability, but never a probability of exactly 1.
      In more practical terms: To argue non-existence you need much data and inferential reasoning; to argue the untrustworthiness — the invalidity — of the tests is easy, you just have to cite Weiss & Cowan in the 4th edition of an authoritative mainstream monograph.

  20. Carol said

    Dr. Bauer,

    I have been following you online for a while & I lean towards the rethinkers. There is something I don’t understand & that is why don’t all the scientist/researchers pool their money & do their own studies re HIV/AIDS? I keep reading where they don’t have the funds. I’ve also read twice that Peter D. said he needed $100,000.00 to do a certain study. By today’s, that not a whole lot of money. Perhaps, a donation…also, why not conduct studies in other countries where funding is available & questioning HIV is a big deal…like Italy. Thanks in advance for your answer.

    • Henry Bauer said

      It may not be much money by today’s standards of what’s spent on research, but that’s funded by grants approved by mainstreamers. Rethinkers who are public about it are typically retired, those who have jobs had better keep their views quiet. Duesberg is able to do research on cancer only through private donations, he gets NO support from his department. I don’t think the situation is much better in other countries; but Professor Marco Ruggiero at the University of Florence has been very adept at publishing HIV/AIDS dissent in ways that the mainstream cannot fault.
      The main thing, though, is that what’s needed is not research but action by influential people. The science is quite clear-cut by now. My book collates all HIV-test data in the USA and it’s obvious that HIV is not correlated with AIDS and that HIV is not sexually transmitted, indeed, is not infectious. What’s needed is an independent judging body that would make the mainstream respond to what Rethinkers have pointed out.

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