HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Archive for November, 2012

Eroding the HIV/AIDS bandwagon

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2012/11/30

The mistaken belief that a positive HIV test proves infection is one of the mainstream’s Achilles heels, in some part because so many conditions — e.g. pregnancy, various vaccinations, TB . . . — can stimulate an apparent positive. The problem is to find a venue in which this weakness can be exploited.One such venue is in a court, and here Clark Baker’s Office of Medical and Scientific Justice has been doing a lot and meeting with a lot of success. They have just announced 49th favorable outcome, for a military veteran who faced great possible penalties if convicted. Read the details at the OMSJ website.

Congratulations once again, OMSJ team!

Posted in experts, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, Legal aspects, vaccines | Tagged: | 15 Comments »

More benefit from vitamin D

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2012/11/27

I had recommended the book Prescribing Sunshine which makes a case for the importance of adequate vitamin D. I was just alerted to a new confirming study that also reports that adequate vitamin D seems to be needed for long-term maintenance of high CD4 counts:
“Vitamin D insufficiency is associated with poorer CD4 cell recovery among women who start HIV treatment late . . . Vitamin D has an important role in overall health. Deficient levels have been linked to immune dysfunction, cardiovascular disease, impaired control of infections and depression.
Several studies have found a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in people with HIV.”

Most of the women in this study were African-American and nearly 90% had been D-deficient—recall that of African ancestry are at greater-than-average risk of being D-deficient.

Posted in Alternative AIDS treatments, antiretroviral drugs, clinical trials | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

My new blog

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2012/11/26

As a number of my recent posts here have indicated, I’ve come to see that the HIV/AIDS mistake is not an idiosyncratic aberration at a time when science including medical science remain generally trustworthy. Rather,  science and medicine overall have become less reliable as the mainstream consensus is many fields has become too dogmatic, unwilling or unable to change course in line with accumulating evidence showing the consensus to be flawed; see Dogmatism  in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth. This realization reinforces my opinion that we cannot achieve a Rethinking of HIV/AIDS theory unless the conventional wisdom also recognizes that a mainstream consensus, no matter how firmly held and long-lasting, might nevertheless be wrong.
So I found myself wanting to write more about these general issues in science and medicine. But this blog, devoted specifically to HIV/AIDS, didn’t seem appropriate to this wider purpose, so I’ve just started a new blog, Skepticism about Science and Medicine. The first entry discusses global warming — or rather, human-caused global warming through emission of carbon dioxide. Why is it politically correct for political liberals to believe the mainstream consensus on this, while it is politically incorrect for conservatives to do so? Neither side apparently understands anything about the actual scientific evidence.

Posted in experts, uncritical media | Tagged: | 2 Comments »


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2012/11/10

At first blush, it seems incredible that the international medical-scientific Establishment could be so wrong, for so long, so wastefully expensive in lives and effort and money, as it has been with the belief that there exists a human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, that caused and continues to cause AIDS.
Because it seems so incredible, hordes of commentators dismiss AIDS Rethinkers as denialists — in the company of other denialists, for example, those who refuse to accept that human-liberated carbon dioxide has contributed appreciably to global warming.

Since the late 19th century, “science” has been the touchstone of trustworthy knowledge. What “science” says is naturally taken by the general public, abetted by the media, as what pertinent professional organizations and acknowledged experts say. “Science” is equated with the prevailing mainstream consensus. If science is the touchstone of true knowledge, which it has seemed reasonable to believe since the end of the 19th century, HIV/AIDS theory being wrong would be an enormous, an incredibly enormous, an inexplicable aberration.

The same conundrum faces the large number of climatologists, meteorologists, atmosphere scientists, and the like who are quite sure that there is no credible evidence that the way the earth is warming has anything to do with carbon dioxide.

What: TWO incredibly enormous, inexplicable aberrations in the world of science?

Actually, there are more than two. But each one is known primarily — perhaps even only — to specialists in each given field *. The fact of the matter is that science has changed. What would have seemed an incredible aberration half a century ago has become the new normal.
That’s the message of my recent book, Dogmatism  in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth, and earlier articles **. I found in an impressive range of specialties that minority views expressed by competent experts are not just ignored, not just argued against, they are actively suppressed by refusal of grants, refusal of resources for research, refusal of publication.
The evidence of suppression is conclusive. That does not, of course, entail that the suppressed claims are right and the mainstream wrong. It does demonstrate, however, that the traditional and conventional view of science as characterized by open argument over interpretations, and thereby reliable self-correction on the basis of evidence, does not describe accurately the contemporary scene.

But if science is now not evidence-based and self-correcting, then errors like HIV/AIDS theory are not aberrations, they are to be expected.

This is a bitter lesson for AIDS Rethinkers and other “denialists”. In order to make our case plausible to the media and the general public, we must at the same time make the case for the sea change that has overtaken “science” in the last half century or so: from generally evidence-based and thereby self-correcting to circumstances much like other social activities: heavily influenced by self-interest of the participating people and institutions.


* Suppression of science within science,, 17 December 2009

** Science in the 21st Century: Knowledge Monopolies and Research Cartels, Journal of Scientific Exploration 18 (2004) 643—660; The New World Order in Science,, 19 December 2009

Posted in experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism, prejudice, uncritical media | Tagged: | 9 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: