HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

2011 in review

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2011/12/31

Even though this is self-advertising by the WordPress people, I thought readers might be interested in which posts brought the greatest number of views, and which brought the greatest number of comments — not the same ones!


The stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about 110,000 times in 2011. If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum, it would take about 5 days for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

11 Responses to “2011 in review”

  1. Lize said

    Thank you for your efforts throughout 2011 in trying to educate people about the truth behind the mainstream HIV/Aids theory! You are making a difference slowly, but surely, I believe, in lifting the stigma from those ‘diagnosed’ with this alleged disease. Keep up the excellent work in 2012!!!

  2. Killed by the deadly Hiv said

    Sorry to disappoint you Henry but I have severe OCD and in 2011 viewed your blog 109,990 times, which can hardly be considered a comment on its general popularity given that there were only 10 views by everyone else.

  3. mo79uk said

    Wow, I yacked quite a fair bit here myself.🙂 365 of those visits are surely thanks to me. Happy New Year!

  4. Send $50 for my secret AIDS cure. said

    The history of science is full of great discoveries that were denied by their contemporaries. Even thirty years later some diehards would be in denial, though they would of course believe themselves to be the competent, progressive minds. Their standard refrain in each case has always been that “there is no evidence”.

    • Guy said

      Once a paradigm is established all research is done based on the assumption of the truth of that paradigm. Contrary evidence is treated as an anomaly that needs to be explained within the constraints of the paradigm. Thus, no evidence can contradict the paradigm, it only requires more explanation. The experts in the orthodoxy are adulated, empowered, and enriched for their understanding of the current paradigm, and will lose authority and perhaps their livelihood if it is replaced with a new one. Copernicus published his heliocentric theories before the birth of Galileo, but Galileo was still put under house arrest for echoing them. Likewise, some of Aristotle’s erroneous ideas survived him by centuries. People who memorized the Organon and quoted it eruditely could get university posts while those who actually thought about and tried to understand things and reached different conclusions were alienated.

      In the case of HIV = AIDS the paradigm that an epidemic was being caused by a sexually transmitted virus was established in a press conference based on the arguments of a charlatan with a history of pronouncements that turned out wrong. In this particular case it has been shown that the paper that supported his pronouncement was not only wrong, but fraudulently altered. He was subsequently removed from his position at NIH for scientific misconduct. Such was the political need for an answer to the AIDS question, and such is the power of paradigm amplified by Federal funding, that no one dares even question the unproven paradigm that was established by a fraudulent paper authored by a discredited scientist.

      Thus, in the recent NEJM article referenced on this blog that studied 1,760 discordant couples (one HIV positive, one HIV negative) the authors of the study did not find it interesting that the rate of “transmission” of the “disease” (by their measure) was 1.2 per 100 person years. To me, this is clear evidence that we are NOT studying a sexually transmitted virus. To the authors, this was not even noteworthy, as sexual transmission has been assumed to be true through acceptance of the paradigm. They were after evidence that showed the products the drug companies were selling should be more widely used, and they concluded that their study provided such evidence.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Right on all counts except that Gallo was dismissed from NIH for scientific misconduct. A committee did render such a finding, but the Director of NIH, Bernardine Healy, helped him get out from under on technical grounds. Somehow Gallo maneuvered the University of Maryland into setting up an Institute for him. I have not heard of any advances credited to that Institute.

  5. SkepticalGuy said

    Here’s to a successful year for this blog, skeptics (not the Shermer kind!), dissidents, and thoughtful questioning people!

    “Wow, I yacked quite a fair bit here myself. 365 of those visits are surely thanks to me. Happy New Year!”

    No shame. I have enjoyed the comments of astute regulars here. I sometimes get as much or more from comments than actual stories. Not so much here, only because the posts are very informative and insightful, but I’m talking more news sites and stuff. But you guys have been good reading!

    “Somehow Gallo maneuvered the University of Maryland into setting up an Institute for him. I have not heard of any advances credited to that Institute.”

    How bout advances of the monetary kind?😉

  6. Thank you for everything and all your extremely hard work Dr. Bauer in bringing to light such a grave and serious health issue. Keep up trying to educate those who stay in the dark.
    I never close this page. I always keep it open. But would that could as one of the 115,000 or one for everyday? I wonder.
    Just one point I would like to share:

    Our population here in Trinidad is roughly 1.3 million people. UNAIDS last estimate of HIV infected individuals here at home is 3% of the population which works out to about 39,000 persons who are infected. I recently read a report that stated the government spent approximately 42 million dollars last year to treat HIV infected persons and that it costs $14,000.00 a year to treat one person. Now assuming my primitive calculations are correct that means they have only treated 3,000 persons last year. So based on this there should be a lot of HIV/AIDS deaths but guess what there were only about 74 deaths attributed to HIV/AIDS last year. So where are the rest of the infected people?

    Assuming my primitive calculations are correct……

    • Henry Bauer said

      Thanks for another example that mainstream HIV/AIDS numbers and claims are not consistent with their own theory

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 )

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