HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Killing a baby

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2013/02/28

In the United States of America, a newborn baby is being killed by toxic drugs. The opinions and wishes of the parents are ignored as against the  authority of Social Services, who appear to believe that “HIV” tests diagnose infection even though they do not (S. H. Weiss and E. P. Cowan, “Laboratory detection of human retroviral infection”, Chapter 8 in AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection, ed. G. P. Wormser, 2004).

The baby’s mother had also been so treated, but her (adopted) parents fled the jurisdiction, took her off antiretrovirals, and she grew healthily and normally thereafter, albeit probably of shorter stature than if she had never been fed AZT.

In the present case, the authorities made flight impossible.

Everyone should read this, even as it will make you sick.


4 Responses to “Killing a baby”

  1. Gary said

    Hi Henry

    Do you know what the story with this “cure”, is about.

    • Henry Bauer said

      In the first place, “HIV+” does not mean the baby was infected with an HIV virus.

      Second: Most HIV+ babies revert to HIV- without any treatment, because they were HIV+ only because they got “HIV” antibodies from the mother, and the tests detected those antibodies, not a virus

      A colleague sent this:
      1) The so-called “landmark finding” never appeared in a scientific publication (refereed or not), but was “announced” at a conference in Atlanta on Sunday.

      2) Liz Szabo reports this remarkable and central fact in the USA Today issue: “Doctors began treating the baby, born five weeks premature, with anti-HIV drugs the day after she was born. She expected the girl to require lifetime medication. However, the girl and her mother stopped going to their doctor’s appointment when she was 18 months old. By the time they saw a doctor again, the baby had been off her HIV medications for five months. [Dr. Hannah] Gay was amazed to discover the child not jut healthy, but HIV-free.”

      It wasn’t the drugs that made her “HIV-free.” It was the fact that she stopped taking the drugs!

      • Guy said

        Dr. Bauer,

        Do you (or any of your readers) have references for “Most HIV+ babies revert to HIV- without any treatment…”? Being able to link to such a reference would be powerful in commenting on other blogs in relation to the cured baby. Also, if it is common knowledge that most HIV+ babies seroconvert to HIV- then what was done to the baby in the above story was that much more monstrous.

        It seems that if the overall HIV+ rate has been stable in the United States (I have not seen any recent evidence of this, but am quoting from memory of your and Dr. Duesberg’s statements) for a couple of decades, and that there are people who are seroconverting – to +, then there must be people who are seroconverting the other way.

      • Henry Bauer said


        It is accepted that mothers transfer antibodies of all sorts to their babies. And “HIV” tests detect antibodies, not virus. The antibodies dissipate over time, chiefly in the first year.

        All HIV-test data in the USA up to the late 1990s, collated and analyzed in my book, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, show that those tests do not track an infectious agent. Here are some extracts:

        Babies test HIV-positive often enough, and 75–90 percent of them revert
        to negative before their teens (Tables 25, 26, 27, Figure 2). Sources of the data are given at those Tables and Figure.
        The inference is drawn from epidemiology, but there is no alternative explanation for why the prevalence of HIV+ declines rapidly from birth, mostly within the first year. It cannot be explained by deaths, there weren’t nearly enough of them.

        p.86 The same study noted high F(HIV) among antenatal and postpartum
        women, again concordant with HIV-positive as marking physiological stress.
        Beyond that, a large percentage of HIV-positive babies had HIV-negative mothers,
        a direct indication that HIV-positive does not mean “infection” with “HIV.”

        p. 99 and thereabouts: the variatiopn of average F(HIV) with age;
        male babies more often HIV+ than female babies

        p. 130 Thus antiretroviral medications constitute a most non-selective and toxic
        chemotherapy. To expectations based on their known toxicity, Duesberg adds
        actual evidence: mortality among HIV-positive hemophiliacs increased sharply
        after they began to be treated with antiretroviral medications; HIV-free animals
        given these drugs experienced weight loss, depletion of T-cells, and other
        symptoms typical of AIDS; HIV-free human babies, treated because their mothers
        were HIV-positive, experienced fever, pneumonia, anemia, and mitochondrial dysfunction.


        I just saw Fauci interviewed on Public TV (Lehrer News Hour) about the “cure”, and some of his comments are worth remembering.
        He said that the doctors made a “gutsy” call to start treatment even before being sure that the baby was infected.
        They did so because the mother had not been HIV-tested during pregnancy, and tested HIV+ when she came in for the delivery.
        [Several of my blog posts cite data showing that pregnancy is itself a possible cause of “false-positive” HIV= results]
        He pointed out that this case was only a “proof of concept” that it might be possible.
        He mentioned that “risk vs. benefit” needed to be weighed because of the toxicity of the drugs.

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