HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

None so blind as those who WILL not see

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2011/06/26

The mainstream HIV/AIDS literature is replete with evidence that HIV/AIDS theory is wrong. Here’s a nice selection made by R. Crumb and obtained courtesy of Martin Barnes, from HIV and the Pathogenesis of AIDS by Jay Levy (3rd ed., 2007). Levy is one of the elders and gurus of HIV/AIDS matters, and he even claims to be a co-discoverer of HIV. Moreover, that his text is in its 3rd edition indicates that it has found favor among his peers. Yet it acknowledges as clearly as can be that there is actually no genuine evidence that HIV caused AIDS then or causes AIDS now:

A central point is the “Unresolved Mystery” of CD4 cell loss (p. 327)
“What causes a decrease in IL-2 (CD8 cell anti-viral factor) production is not known” (331)
“The process leading to a reduction in anti-HIV immune responses, mirrored by the loss of CD4 cells and CD8 cell responses, are not yet well defined. Most likely, multiple factors are involved in CD4 cell loss” (328)
“[R]elatively few infected cells show sufficient virus replication that would lead to cell death” (329)
“The exact mechanism toward CD4 cell depletion and immune deficiency are not yet well defined, and its cellular latency, as well as several other features of HIV infection, remain mysterious” (429)

“The mechanism for anti-body mediated neutralization of HIV has not yet been well-defined” (239)
“The clinical relevance of neutralizing antibodies remains unclear” (246)
“Why certain laboratory strains (of HIV) passaged for months or years in vitro, are very sensitive to neutralization by a variety of heterologous sera is not clear” (240)

“[T]he true nature of the envelope structure of an infectious virion has not been resolved” (10)

“Studies with individual HIV isolates may not provide the correct conclusions relating to in vivo pathogenesis” (328)

“The reasons for this disconnect between viral load and CD4 cell count are not known” (333)

“Thus, how, where, and when HIV emerged in human populations and existed in various groups and clades are not clearly evident” (21)

“While current anti-viral drugs have had substantial effects on HIV infection and development of disease, the side effects can be very harmful to the infected individual. These include abnormalities in body fat distribution and in lipid and glucose metabolism, cardiac disease, and pancreatic, liver, and kidney disorders” (381)

CONCLUSIONS: “Encouraging progress has been made in understanding the pathogenesis of HIV infection…Nevertheless, the path toward eventual control of HIV still requires major efforts toward immune restoration and the development of an effective vaccine” (429)

———————————————-
That last statement is quite typical. The details in the text make plain that nothing is understood about how HIV is supposed to kill off the immune system and cause AIDS. But those who believe in their bones that HIV causes AIDS can only repeat over and over again, “Much is known but more needs to be understood”; Fauci, for one, says that almost routinely. What exactly it is that’s known is never specified, however.

As always, it’s quite difficult to resist the emotional impulse to interpret the sorry state of affairs in terms of deliberate hoodwinking of the public by the experts and insiders. But there is a more plausible albeit complicated interpretation that’s based solidly in the history and sociology of science. Recognize that the vast majority of HIV/AIDS researchers are engaged in excruciatingly specialized studies of intricate details, based unthinkingly on the accepted dogma. No one who enters HIV/AIDS research has the slightest doubt about it. Therefore when conundrums are encountered, they are regarded as challenges and reasons for further research, not as potential falsification of the fundamental premise. This may be particularly so with those like Jay Levy who have been in the field since its beginning and whose careers are inseparable from HIV/AIDS theory.
It’s not that these people willfully ignore evidence, it’s that they are incapable of appreciating its significance because their mindset makes it literally inconceivable; it’s an illustration of the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, by which our minds guard themselves against threats to our beliefs.
It follows that Rethinking cannot reasonably aim to change the minds of the HIV/AIDS research establishment: those will be the very last people to admit the truth. Change must be forced from the outside, by those who make public policy and feed the funding of research, treatment, and ancillary public activities. One tiny silver lining in the pervasively gloomy global economic clouds may be that some politicians might become willing to listen to claims that tens of billions of dollars are being wasted annually in pursuit of a non-existent entity that causes an invented disease.

———————————————————-
Literary digression:
The insight that “none are so blind as those who will not see” has been traced back as far as the 16th  century. Answers.com cites, apparently from the Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs:
Who is so deafe, or so blynde, as is hee, That willfully will nother here nor see [1546 J. Heywood Dialogue of Proverbs ii. ix. K4]
There is no manne so blynd as he that will not see, nor so dull as he that wyll not vnderstande [1551 Cranmer Answer to Gardiner 58]
My Wordsworth Dictionary of Proverbs (ed. G. L. Apperson, 1993) also gives, from 1547, Borde’s Breviary of Helthe
Concepts like this were doubtless known well before they could be traced in written records. For a delightful as well as informative illustration, see Robert Merton’s On the Shoulders of Giants.

7 Responses to “None so blind as those who WILL not see”

  1. Jon von Briesen said

    Just a layman, here; but, I find this brief compilation of admissions to uncertainty to be stunning. I should probably say “frightening,” as well. We don’t really know the envelope of an HIV particle; but, we use are assumptions about it to test for antibody reactions. We cannot explain the “disconnect” between CD-4 T-cell levels and Viral Load; but, we decide when to start you on a course of highly toxic chemotherapies based on our assumption of what that relationship should be.

    Thank you for presenting this.

    The full title of Cranmer’s answer to Stephen Gardiner is more like:

    An Answer unto a Crafty and Sophistical Cavillation devised by Stephen Gardiner, late Bishop of Winchester, against the True and Godly Doctrine of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ

  2. BornSkeptic said

    Henry, the medical profession tends to completely dismiss the influence of psychological factors on patient well-being, though this is beginning to change. I have been trying to find studies that investigate the influence of battle conditions on soldier’s immune systems and post-diagnosis cancer patients who have yet to receive chemotherapy. Both of these psychological insults would seem to mimic the conditions surrounding being told one has a deadly virus which is 100% fatal. Soldiers are under constant stress even when removed from the battle field, as they know they must eventually return. Much like our supposed deadly HIV, soldiers can never really escape from their death sentence. Are you aware of any studies that indicate soldiers in combat have higher rates of infectious diseases and lower T-cells? With regard to cancer patients, receiving such a diagnosis must be horrendous and create a huge insult to the immune system via the psychological stress. even before patients begin chemotherapy the body has been run down by psychological factors. Are you aware of any studies investigating the effect of a cancer diagnosis on immune health and T-cell levels? I believe that the bogus diagnosis of being “HIV +” is one explanation for decreasing T-cell levels post-diagnosis. Add to this patients going to their doctor every 6 months for their “Viral load” and “T-cell Test” and the ridiculous amount of weight bestowed on these non-specific and unvalidated tests creates a circle of doom that could easily account for decreasing T-cell levels.

    • Henry Bauer said

      BornSkeptic:
      I don’t know of any such specific studies. However, it is becoming widely accepted that placebo is very powerful, and that its dark opposite, nocebo, is equally powerful. Australian aborigines die when they realize that the ritual bones have been pointed at them; and damage to immune functioning would seem to be a plausible mechanism for bringing that about. Psychiatrist Casper Schmidt wrote very early about the nocebo implications of AIDS, see Chapters I & V in “The AIDS Cult: Essays on the Gay Health Crisis” by John Lauritsen and Ian Young, Asklepios 1997.

  3. Jack Knight said

    Mr. Bauer,
    This is a bit dubious, don’t you think? You have cited about 15 sentences out of the thousands of sentences in this text. Do you really think that because science admits that there are still things to learn about HIV that means nothing is known about HIV?

    Are there no other diseases that science can treat but does not know every single bit of the pathogenesis?

    • Henry Bauer said

      Jack Knight:
      I don’t understand your comment. Levy acknowledges that there is lack of understanding on all the salient points in HIV/AIDS theory.

      In any case and furthermore, my book collates all available data from HIV tests in the USA up to the late 1990s (as well as from a number of other regions) and demonstrates that what “HIV tests” measure is neither infectious nor correlated with AIDS numbers. If you go to http://www.microbiologybytes.com/virology/AIDSI.html, you will also note that there is no agreement on a mechanism by which “HIV” can kill the cells it’s supposed to kill. Other posts on this blog showed that there is no latent period (HIV diagnoses, AIDS diagnoses, and deaths all lie in the same age range); and that the death rate of “people with AIDS” does not increase with age, unlike every other ailment known to humankind.
      The only dubious thing is that the mainstream ignores what authoritative sources like Levy, or Weiss and Cowan cited often on this blog, have published in the mainstream technical literature.

    • Pellegri said

      Are there no other diseases that science can treat but does not know every single bit of the pathogenesis?

      Not the same way they don’t know about HIV.

      Acquired Immunodeficiency very definitely exists. It’s possible for adult humans to lose most or all of their immune function for a large number of reasons that don’t involve inborn genetic mutations–cancer, stress, parasite load, starvation, and a number of viral and bacterial diseases all result in immunosuppression.

      There are also infectious diseases that co-opt cells of the immune system. Tuberculosis is one of these; Mycobacterium tuberculosis is a well-characterized organism in the lab and its method of invading alveolar macrophages and causing cell death is well understood, and TB tests are considered to be an accurate diagnosis of TB infection. M. tuberculosis can be cultured in the lab, cloned, and genetically manipulated, and passes all of Koch’s postulates.

      Good luck on any of that with HIV.

  4. BSdetector said

    [To Jack Knight]
    “Do you really think that because science admits that there are still things to learn about HIV that means nothing is known about HIV”

    I think a more important point is that with all the unknowns admitted by the so-called “HIV Experts”, when do you stop telling patients that have an infection that is 100% fatal…but we can give you a few years with our “life giving” drugs. Of course, all of these drugs have horrendous side-effects that will eventually kill you anyway. But, there you have it.

    What amazes me is that with all these huge holes in their theory, it never occurs to the purveyors of this same theory to STOP telling patients they are going to die and just sit back and THINK about what is ACTUALLY going on here. It reminds me of the US military-industrial complex. Even though our grand enemy, the Soviet Union, died 20 years ago, we just keep right on building those aircraft carriers and battleships as if nothing has happened, spending 10 times as much on our military as any other nation on Earth. Were these “HIV Experts’ formerly employed at the Pentagon?

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