HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Holy Grails, Unicorns, and HIV Vaccines

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2013/08/22

The three subjects of my title have these things in common:

1. No one can produce an authentic specimen.
2. All the evidence for their existence is anecdotal and based on human testimony.
3. Dedicated and ingenious quests have failed to locate an authentic specimen.
4. Nevertheless, their existence is attested by a cult of true believers.

These commonalities occurred to me as I was rummaging in my old files and became rather surprised at the number of mentions of HIV vaccines: new clues for what could lead to a vaccine; promising breakthroughs in understanding how to construct a vaccine; grants from private and public agencies for research on vaccines; organizations set up to facilitate cooperative work toward a vaccine; clinical trials of potential vaccines — and failure after failure after failure. Here is just a small sample from my randomly gathered files:

1984: Vaccine probably within a couple of years
—— Robert Gallo: “Oh, possibly in a couple of years”, cited at p. 176 in Great Feuds in Medicine by Hal Hellman (Wiley, 2002);
—— Margaret Heckler, 23 April press conference: “We hope to have such a vaccine ready for testing in about two years”, cited at p. 25 in The AIDS Bureaucracy by Sandra Panem (Harvard University Press, 1988); at p. 64 in AIDS at 30: A History by Victoria A. Harden (Potomac Books, 2012).

1985: “Recent demonstrations of neutralizing antibodies in AIDS and pre-AIDS patients . . . are encouraging for the prospects of a vaccine”
—— Wong-Staal & Gallo, “Human T-lymphotropic retroviruses”, Nature, 317 (1985) 395-403.

But 10 years later, no success and not even any obvious advance:
1995: However, “Nobody can say the data were encouraging. It’s all smoke and mirrors. There’s nothing there”, according to AIDS vaccine researcher John P. Moore
—— Jon Cohen, Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine (Norton, 2001), p. 275.

1999: Elite controllers of HIV could lead to vaccine development
—— Sarah Rowland-Jones, “Long-term non-progression in HIV infection: Clinico pathological issues”, Journal of Infection, 38 (1999) 67-70.
—— Philippa J. Easterbrook, “Long-term non-progression in HIV infection: definitions and epidemiological issues”, Journal of Infection, 38 (1999) 71-3.

1999: “Promising results for Vical’s HIV vaccine”
—— New Statesman, 30 November 1999.
By 2007, not so promising: “NIH determined that it would not conduct the PAVE 100 study”.
—— Vical, “HIV Vaccine”.

2005: “[D]evelopment of an HIV vaccine remains one of the most difficult challenges confronting biomedical research today”
—— Coordinating Committee of the Global HIV/AIDS Vaccine Enterprise, “The Global HIV/AIDS Vaccine Enterprise: Scientific Strategic Plan”, PLoS Medicine, 2 #2 (2005) e25, pp. 0111-0121.

2006: “[A]bout 2,000 . . . controllers worldwide whose entire genetic makeups will be carefully examined by an international team of scientists as part of the quest to discover an AIDS vaccine”
—— Warren King, “Rod Fichter has lived with HIV for 20 years with no symptoms”, Seattle Times, 23 November 2006.

2006: “As many as one in 300 HIV patients never get sick . . . . their cases can help in the search for a vaccine”
—— Maggie Fox, “ ‘Elite’ HIV patients mystify doctors”, Reuters, 16 August 2006;

2006: Elite controllers of HIV could lead to vaccine development (cf. 1999).
—— Marmor et al., “Resistance to HIV Infection”, J. Urban Health, 83 (2006) 5-17.

2006: “Swedish prime-boost HIV DNA vaccine shows strong responses”
—— Keith Alcorn, 1 September 2006;, accessed 23 September 2006 (broken link).

2006: “Is an AIDS vaccine possible? Experts more optimistic after annual vaccine meeting”
—— Keith Alcorn, 5 September 2006;, accessed 23 September 2006 (broken link).

2007: “[W]ill help with the design of an HIV vaccine”
—— “Novel genetics research advances possibility of HIV vaccine”,, 8 July 2007; .

2007: Elite controllers of HIV could lead to vaccine development (cf. 1999)
—— O. J. Fagbire, “Elite controllers of HIV could lead to vaccine development”, 10 June 2007;, accessed 21 June 2007 (broken link).

2007: But immune response to one strain of “HIV” may not protect against other strains
—— Piantadosi et al., “Chronic HIV-1 infection frequently fails to protect against superinfection”, PLoS Pathog, 3 (2007) e177.

2007: “Ending of HIV vaccine trial jolts industry. . . . Merck had assembled the latest thinking on a 20-year quest . . . . had spent more than a decade devising the best ways . . . . the vaccine did not seem to be working. More people among the vaccinated group were getting the virus than those receiving a placebo. . . . roughly 90 percent of vaccine studies were using major elements of Merck’s approach. . . . John W. Shiver, who heads Merck’s basic research in vaccines . . . [and] is credited with several research advances, said he did not think any current approach would work. . . . a new burst of creativity was needed” [emphasis added].
—— Karl Stark, “Ending of HIV vaccine trial jolts industry Merck’s case was a failure of a product, not a failure of the vaccine’s concept”,, 7 October 2007.

2007: “[D]ata from . . . a 52 weeks clinical trial . . . did not show a clear advantage of . . . second generation HIV vaccine, IR103, over its original whole-killed HIV vaccine, REMUNE(R)”
—— “Orchestra Therapeutics discontinues its HIV vaccine development program”, PRNewswire-FirstCall, 17 July 2007;, accessed 18 July 2007 (broken link).

2007: “Scientists unveil piece of HIV protein that may be key to AIDS vaccine development”
—— NIH News, 14 February 2007; .

2007: “Novavax and collaborators significantly improve VLP vaccine for HIV/AIDS: Plans under way to advance new vaccine into clinical testing”
—— PRNewswire, 16 January 2007.

2008: “[T]he protein, FOX03a, shields against viral attacks and . . . the discovery will help in the development of a HIV vaccine”
—— “HIV breakthrough: Protein that fights immunodeficiency identified”,, 3 March 2008.

2008: “HIV isolate from Kenya provides clues for vaccine design”
—— EurekAlert, 2 January 2008
—— Blish et al., “Enhancing exposure of HIV-1 neutralization epitopes through mutations in gp41”, PLoS Med., 5 (#1, 2008) e9.

2008: Review: “Immune correlates of protection against HIV-1 infection”
—— Piacentini et al., “Not just sheer luck! Immune correlates of protection against HIV-1 infection”, Vaccine, 26 (2008) 3002-7.

2008: “Scientists are no further forward in developing a vaccine against HIV after more than 20 years of research, a Nobel Prize-winning biologist [David Baltimore] has said”
—— Helen Briggs, “HIV vaccine research hits impasse”, BBC News, 15 February 2008.

2008: “Despite hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, the reality in 2008 is that an HIV vaccine clearly remains beyond our grasp” [emphasis added]
—— Warner Greene, cochair of the HIV Vaccine Summit, cited in Bob Roehr, “NIH to Refocus HIV Vaccine Research”, 3April 2008;, accessed 10 April 2008 (broken link).

2008: “Critics fear worst for new SA HIV vaccine”
—— Bobby Jordan, Sunday Times (South Africa), 13 April 2008.

2008: Most scientists involved in Aids research believe that a vaccine against HIV is further away than ever and some have admitted that effective immunisation against the virus may never be possible, according to an unprecedented poll conducted by The Independent” [emphasis added]
—— Steve Connor & Chris Green, “Is it time to give up the search for an Aids vaccine? After 25 years and billions of pounds, leading scientists are now forced to ask this question”,, 24 April 2008; .

2012: “[N]ew and promising pathways …promising developments in HIV-1 vaccine design”
—— Kwong et al., “The changing face of HIV vaccine research”, J Int AIDS Soc., 15 (2012) 17407.

2013: “[A] major setback . . . volunteers who received the vaccination shot were more likely to contract the virus than those who were given a placebo. . . . Dr. Anthony Fauci called the results of the trial a ‘disappointment’ but added that the study yielded ‘important information’ that would help guide future research”
—— Katie McDonough, “Failed HIV vaccine clinical trial shut down — Researchers faced a major setback in the pursuit of an HIV vaccine after the shot was shown to be ineffective”,, 26 April 2013; .

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

With the Holy Grail and with unicorns, the intellectual mainstream of modern Western society has concluded that the anecdotal human testimony can be explained in other ways than the actual existence of the purported items. For various reasons, that conclusion has not yet been reached by a societal consensus on the matter of HIV vaccines. For one thing, HIV vaccines are taken to be matters of “science”, and society doesn’t disagree with whatever the mainstream consensus happens to be at any given time in any given scientific specialty. AIDS Rethinkers and HIV Skeptics, on the other hand, have very good explanations for the persistent failure of attempts to construct an HIV vaccine: HIV doesn’t exist.

How could I describe the evidence as “anecdotal and based on human testimony”? Simply because authentic virions of HIV have never been isolated direct from an “HIV-positive” individual. All research is based on so-called “isolates” of HIV, which are mixtures of many substances that originate in a particular density layer of solutions taken from cultures in which various active ingredients were mixed with material extracted from supposedly infected people. There is no gold-standard HIV test for this very reason; authentic naturally occurring HIV virions have never been demonstrated to exist. Yet vaccines are intended to work again such virions and their subsequent actions.

The mainstream HIV/AIDS literature is replete with the most intricate technical details and the most ingenious speculative attempts to explain results that should not be obtained if HIV/AIDS theory were correct. Yet every failure of HIV/AIDS theory just stimulates upholders of the faith to ever more arcane researches. One is reminded of the classic description of the sociology of cognitive dissonance: When the predicted Day of Judgment did not arrive on the calculated date, the underlying theory (=faith) was not questioned let alone abandoned; instead, new calculations delivered a new date — When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of A Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World (Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, & Stanley Schachter, Harper, 1956).

I acknowledged that my list of items is just a small sampling. PubMed is the abstracting and indexing service of the National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health. A PubMed search for “HIV vaccine” yielded 15,000 results and for “AIDS vaccine” 10,000 results. There may be some duplication, but the number of technical articles published in the medical-scientific literature about vaccines against “HIV/AIDS” is at the very least 15,000 and may be in excess of 25,000; moreover, the vast majority of those will have described promising paths toward a vaccine, because disappointing results hardly ever get published.
Google Scholar returns 838,000 results for “HIV vaccine” and 510,000 for “AIDS vaccine”, indicating that interest beyond the strictly technical is high among academics, for example speculating about behavioral, economic, sociological aspects of a potential vaccine
The popular media amplify all these professional writings: A Google search for “HIV vaccine” yielded 20 million hits and 19 million for “AIDS vaccine”.

That’s a lot of words about something that may well be a mirage.

For lay people, the best way to think about the search for an HIV vaccine (or “AIDS vaccine”) is to recognize it as belonging to the genre of quests for the Holy Grail or for unicorns.

31 Responses to “Holy Grails, Unicorns, and HIV Vaccines”

  1. Michael said

    Hello. I’ve been reading your site off and on for a few years. I find it very interesting. However, I don’t really see the lack of a vaccine as a good argument for why HIV doesn’t exist. For example, we don’t yet have a vaccine for genital herpes but we know that exists. Of course, if we spent as much money on a herpes vaccine as HIV maybe we would have one. Honestly, I don’t know much about these diseases so maybe there is a good reason a herpes vaccine has not been successful. Keep up the good work!

    • Henry Bauer said

      You may have a point. I don’t know how much has been tried in the way of a herpes vaccine, there are some trials going on now. But 3 decades of “promising, breakthroughs” and >15.000 scientific articles surely suggests that something is quite wrong.

    • Marshall Sandefur said

      Hey Michael,
      I have been debating the HIV/AIDS hypothesis for a long time. Women who heard me talking have approached me in private about their positive HIV status. I developed relationship with some over a more than 15 year period. We had sex and none of us are sick or ever will get sick. We are just normal people. We may get a cold or flu like anyone else. But as long as you don’t start taking the anti-retroviral drugs you will get well like anyone else. I’m 62 now. I’m in great physical conditioning. I rode my bicycle from Atlanta to New York six time and plan to do it again next year. I want to do it in four days, with my bike weighing 50 pounds loaded down. I’m not sick, HIV has
      never been a concern of mine and if a woman wakes up I would have sex with her if I’m interested in her. I know of at least a dozen people that I couldn’t reach that died because they took the anti-retroviral drugs. No one I reached ever got sick.
      Peace and blessings,
      Marshall Sandefur

  2. How about a comparison to other, historical scientific “quests,” rather than to mythological quests? Has there ever been success in the pursuit of a specific goal in science, where the work took more than thirty years?

    Amazing successes took less time: man on the moon, or the atomic bomb. Have any taken more time?

    It’s easy enough to find failures of 30+ years quests. The cure for cancer comes to mind. Or even better, the quest for fusion atomic energy. If we follow your logic, then cancer or thermonuclear fusion are really not well understood. (… and I’m not arguing that they are well understood. Maybe indeed there is something fundamentally wrong with our understanding of those problems/challenges).

    Even more amazing: the comparison to technological advance in the past thirty years! Think of computers from thirty years ago… all that technological advance has not helped these “quests.”

    • Henry Bauer said

      Your points are good ones, as generalizations.
      Man on the moon and atomic bomb needed no new fundamental understanding, the problems to be solved were purely technical ones.
      Cancer, we don’t even know what sets it off or what the subsequent steps are. Maybe “cancer” is not even a meaningful category — i.e., maybe a number of different things can set off various kinds of growths, some fast, some slow, some malignant, some not.
      Thermonuclear fusion seems to be well understood IN THE STARS. I can think of no good reason why it should be possible to generate useful energy on Earth by such a process; the technical problems haven’t begun to be solved. They are beginning to attain the conditions in an isolated little spot, but how to get energy out is anyone’s guess — or perhaps no one’s….

      Re HIV vaccine: My main point is that there have been a whole host of “promising” leads and ballyhooed “breakthroughs”, yet none of them has panned out. Not even when they are based on information from certified infected elite controllers who don’t get ill.

      I don’t have good sense yet of what comparable quests there may have been in the past. I suspect not many, because “science” wasn’t so corporately organized before World War II. So the ones you mention may be most of them. But polio vaccine was a successful one. If I think of more, I’ll post about it. Thanks for the thoughtful and stimulating comment.

  3. This is not unlike the situation with flu vaccines. The CDC knows that they are poor value, yet they say, basically, that we should increase their usage. So here, we’re being told that vaccine development is going nowhere but that we should not give up hope (Buddhism teaches, rightly IMO, that hope is an illusion).

    But what do you expect? Wrong paradigms always lead you to nowhere, except when serendipity strikes (e.g. ARVs don’t kill HIV, but have an antifungal effect, giving the illusion that they ‘work’). I know less about cancer than about AIDS, but I suspect that the paradigm (attack-counterattack) and theories (cancer cells are stubborn; the only treatments that work are the official ones; etc.) there are wrong, too. Very, very wrong.

    This analogy for HIV-AIDS in general might be apt: the dominant computing platform in the ’90s was Windows. But it was unreliable and insecure. So they kept patching it. And patching it. And patching it. Because users didn’t want to give up Windows (apparently the ‘serious’ operating system, the ‘industry standard’) they talked themselves into keeping it, even though it caused a lot of pain (not that you’d read about it on the news).

    Eventually, though, thanks to other products like iOS gaining momentum, people are seeing how silly it is to maintain the Windows PC paradigm. Things apparently move quickly in the computer industry, but the freedom from Windows took a long time. Note that Microsoft never forced it upon anyone, although they did bully PC makers into rejecting competing products.

    How long will it take to break the shackles of the unworkable HIV-AIDS theory? Maybe not as long as we think. What’s the best way to kill a zombie? Target its brain. Hard to do with a moving target from a distance. But when your bullet hits, that zombie is not coming back.

    As for vaccines in general, I am now very skeptical of all of them. I don’t know enough yet and I have a lot of reading to do. But it could be that polio and small pox were not cured by vaccines after all. Maybe. And it could also be that when unvaccinated kids get infections, it has nothing to do with them being unvaccinated. On the surface, of course, you’d have to say I’m wrong. So what is responsible for this measles outbreak: homeschooling… or not vaccinating?:

    • Henry Bauer said

      Karim Ghantous:

      Yes. I was quite surprised to read official statements that the flu vaccines are about 10% effective, and least effective for those of us (older people) who could benefit most. But I think the historical record re smallpox and polio suggests that vaccination did work very well. I recall how terrified we were about polio when I was growing up in the 1940s and ’50s.
      But I also think the danger of mercury preservatives and squalene=type “adjuvants” has been downplayed too much. And I think Gardasil & Cervarix are dangerous scams. I think drug companies are looking to vaccines as their future blockbuster profit-makers because they’ve run out of diseases to invent and find cures for (erectile dysfunction, seasonal affective disorder, female sexual dysphoria, etc. etc.)

      • Mr. Bauer: As to polio, there is abundant testimony and industry/agricultural production data that show in the U.S. over 600,000,000 pounds of neuro-toxic pesticides such as DDT and additional toxic spraying chemicals were ramped up the late 1940s into the 1950s – when “transient muscle flacidity” escalated and comprised the huge majority of “polio” cases. Thus, the true cause was Not the polio virus that has been endemic from the dawn of medical statistics and with virtually everybody, as a baby by the first 12 months, having barely or not at all noticeable symptoms. Thence immune for the rest of the human life span.

        This is why “polio” when manifesting more than minor symptoms was called “infantile paralysis” – and was always very rare except in malnourished (non-breastfed) babies. In addition, medical papers from the 1950s document significant DDT in mothers’ breast milk!

        In my extensive review, the “success of the polio vaccine” is a fabricated illusion, particularly as the exact same symptoms since 1955 have been re-diagnosed as various meningitis(es), etc. BY ESTABLISHMENT DEFINITION these cases cannot now be polio because the ruling paradigm dictates polio vaccination is infallible!

        I would be delighted if you want to communicate on this polio topic, as the HIV paradigm is a valid (false) parallel.

      • Henry Bauer said

        david m burd:

        I haven’t looked into all the literature enough re polio to make an informed response, but I do recall that we were terrified about contracting polio as I grew up >70 years ago in Australia. Yes, we called it infantile paralysis because it affected children mainly. I believe the “iron lung” which kept some polio victims alive was an Australian invention. And the incidence of polio in Australia dropped to negligible after the vaccine was introduced.
        I understand that there could be other explanations, and that this is little more than an anecdote, but I happen to believe that vaccines have been successful against some diseases, for example smallpox.

  4. Rony A. H said

    Hello ,
    I am really interested in your site ,
    Have you seen this new breakthrough !!!?:
    what do you feel about it, about his claim of purification of the virus !!

    • Henry Bauer said

      Rony A. H.:
      There have been innumerable such claims over nearly 3 decades and no single one has stood up to the test of time. I predict with some confidence that this one will not be heard from in 5 or 10 years.

      The essential point is that “HIV” is mythical. “HIV” tests respond to a huge variety of substances, for example in people who have been vaccinated against flu or tetanus, or who are pregnant, or have TB . . . .
      Since there is no “HIV” virus, you can’t vaccinate against it.

      Those who claim the virus exists have not yet — after 30 years — produced a sample of pure “HIV” virions obtained from someone with AIDS or who is “HIV+”. All the so-called “isolates” are mixtures in which electron microscopy shows a huge variety of particles and cellular debris. Any number of things in those mixtures will respond “positive” to “HIV” antibody or “viral load” tests.

  5. I read the Huffington Post article that Rony posted. This quote was interesting:

    “boosted the production of antibodies”

    Hold on a second. The same antibodies for which HIV tests return positive results? Am I understanding correctly? Let me guess how this is going to play: after patients take HIV tests, many of which result positive due to the antibodies produced, the vaccine is deemed unsuccessful.

    And if this lab actually did isolate HIV, it is not mentioned that it was the first to do so. The silence speaks volumes.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Karim Ghantous:

      It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

    • Benedetto said

      As far as antibodies are concerned.. according to the official view, since the very beginning of the virus theory, antibodies have always been considered useless in fighting this tricky bug.. but back in the early 80s, when no general epidemiological data was in hand, no pathological mechanism was (is!) even known, how could they be so certain/assertive? I mean, where did they get this idea, which as far as I know, should also be unique to hiv? Maybe ALL (100%!) people who tested positive in those days died anyway shortly afterwards, as to convince all hiv researchers? I cannot think a better answer.
      Henry, what do you think about this? Thank you

      • Henry Bauer said


        In Part III of The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory I detail the various mis-steps that led to the hegemony of HIV/AIDS theory.

        “How could…” — Why not” Scientists are just as human as anyone else, and they make mistakes and do things for bad reasons, etc. etc. Different people made different mistakes fro different reasons. Dr Michael Gottlieb made the first mistaken “AIDS” diagnosis. Robert Gallo did much harm with incompetent and dishonest stuff. Lots of others muddled things up.

  6. Benedetto, there is abundant documentation the early deaths from “aids” (called “GRID” – ‘gay related infectious disease’) in the early-mid 1980s was iatrogenic.

    This great majority of deaths (other than the small portion by the wrecked health of hyperactive homosexuals taking endless recreational drugs and antibiotics to treat their STDs), was from about 20 different drugs such as Ribavirin, Suramin, Dextron Sulfate, Fluconzole, Vinblastine, Mitoxantrone, HPA-23, Interferon-beta, Imunthiol, Interleukins, pentamidine, etc., – all documented in many National Cancer Institute published papers, along with many other toxic/lethal drugs that were prescribed in many, many Informal Trials by sympathetic doctors (such as Donald Abrams, Marcus Conant) most all Trials/experiments in New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles – with many of these drugs supplied by Project Inform (Martin Delaney) smuggled in from Mexico, or OK’ed by for compassionate use by Anthony Fauci, et al.

    It was all about panic and medical professionals via political correctness not wanting to find behavior as a lethal “aids” cause – and instead finding (wrongly) a phony external pathogen that would fund the $400 billions so far spent by an ignorant Congress led by its nose by such as Anthony Fauci, Sam Broder of the National Cancer Institute (Mr. AZT), et al.

    As the iconic manager Casey Stengel of the New York Yankees said, “check it out.”

    please pardon any typos — david m burd

    • Henry Bauer said

      david m burd:

      It seems that AZT caused about 150,000 deaths over a decade: HAART saves lives — but doesn’t prolong them!?

      • henry bauer:

        thanks for your comment and reference to the HAART paper. There are so many confounding factors in “survival rates” of those testing positive to ‘hiv.’ And you rightly focus on those in fine health but only testing to the 1993 definition of “positive” along with a low white blood cell count.

        No data actually exists that I can find, but it seems reasonable that many (if not most) people getting the new 1993 diagnosis simply did/do not take the toxic HAART drugs introduced in 1996 – which, by the way – also contained 600 mg of AZT per day, along with 300 mg of other toxic antiretroviral drugs, and 2400 mgs of protease inhibitors (also very toxic).

        Only in Summer 2006 was AZT (zidovudine) dropped in the new ballyhooed Atripla (the one-a-day pill having three new drugs), having a total dose of 1100 mgs compared to the original HAART of 3300 mgs! Per day!

        Also, many doctors who unwittingly brought about the AIDS panic in the early-mid 1980s later turned against advocating antiretrovirals, and instead advocated a “wait and see” as to clinical health (Dr. Donald Abrams in the SF Bay Area is a well known example).

        Additionally, Canadian doctors along with European colleagues increasingly took a “wait and see” approach as to prescribing the toxic drugs.

        Finally, data by Lohse et al. in Denmark published January, 2007 in Annals of Internal Medicine, showed 25% of hiv-positives refusing any offered antiretroviral drugs (and not taking Hepatitis C drugs such as extremely toxic ribavirin) had life expectancy of another 39 years to age 64, starting at age 25 – basically the same as other Denmark citizens having like alcoholic and other drug addictions (though not hiv-positive).

    • Benedetto said

      So, also due to the iatrogenic effects, the mortality rate was so high, that when the virus hipotesys was put forward it was “clear” for them that the body defences were not able to fight it off.. am I right? I see David, thank you

      And, once one assumes that tenent, it follows – as its corollary – that the infection is bound to last for ever, I mean, until the bug makes its job.. And, always according to the official view, even if your antibodies were useful you couldn’t get rid of the virus anyway, since, as all retroviruses, hiv fuses its genome into ours, and at that point there is no way for the immune system to recognize and kill off all the infected cells.. Did I get it right?

      thank you

      NB – i’m sorry for asking you all this technicalities, but I’m trying to understand how and why the hiv theory was built up the way it is… I’m also reading your book Henry, which i find very useful indeed..

      • Benedetto, There is no evidence at all after tens of thousands of papers on “hiv” (most all paid by scores of $billions of U.S. citizen tax dollars) that the purported “hiv” retrovirus can indeed kill human cells.

        There are also acknowledged/accepted papers that our human makeup includes about 90,000+ endogenous (i.e. part of our evolved makeup) retroviruses. To believe that one single retrovirus (hiv**) among 90,000 can change to become a deadly pathogen defies credibility.

        **Then again, the establishment experts say the “hiv” genome is infinitely variable, thus making a vaccine impossible – every excuse possible, but bringing more $billions for experiments and Trials.

        Bottom line: “hiv” does not, and cannot kill its host human cells. What does kill human cells (and a person) are the proven deadly drugs that have been incessantly prescribed for 30 years now. Hundreds of $billions of dollars vested in this monstrous blunder have a momentum all their own, along with the (unjustified) reputation of U.S. health leaders who cannot and will not reassess their original mistakes in believing “hiv” was/is pathogenic.

        Conversely, there are many studies on record citing those “hiv-positive” never taking the antiretroviral drugs are mysteriously thriving after 30 years now! – per normal human existence. Of course, these studies are cast away as anomalies, and the beat goes on, as does down the drain another $30 Billion U.S. dollars for hiv/aids this coming fiscal year.

      • Benedetto said

        thanks David, you sound very competend in this field indeed… may I ask you what do you think about the very existence of “hiv”? Which side are you on and why.. (Duesberg says it exists, because its genome has been demonstrated to be not human…or something like that. but how he then explains such supposed variability?)
        thank you

  7. Gary said

    Hi Henry

    There was an episode on catalyst last night about a cure for HIV

    Is this one way for the establishment to extricate themselves from a problem of their own making

    • Henry Bauer said


      I don’t think they understand yet that they need to extricate themselves. Unfortunately it’s always possible to come up with farfetched ideas that generate opportunities for research and research grants.

  8. lukas said

    Dear Prof. Bauer,
    I’ve just read the news that states that Dr Montaigner has said that we don’t need the vaccine anymore.He has said that aids is caused by the a sum of genetic factors with other bacterial infection(at least for african epidemic he said)during a conference in italy.I give you the link(it is in italian but not found the news elsewhere):
    I’m very curious to know your considerations about this last statement.
    Thank you very much

    • Henry Bauer said


      Two decades ago Montagnier’s lab published studies showing that “HIV” didn’t kill T-cells, because adding an antibiotic stopped the killing, i.e. the killer was a microbe not a virus; Montagnier believed, a mycoplasma.

      He has OFTEN said that people with normal immune systems can shake off “HIV” infection without assistance, for example in the documentary “House of Numbers”.

      My own belief is that there is no evidence that “HIV” even exists as an infectious exogenous retrovirus.

  9. Greg said

    Is it a necessity to bring religion into the Rethinking of Aids? Holy Grail? Really? And the point is?

    • Henry Bauer said


      The plural should indicate that I made no reference to religion, using “Holy Grail” in the common idiomatic sense of “The object of an idealistic quest, an all but unattainable goal” (p. 167 in Elizabeth Webber & Mike Feinsilber, Grand Allusions: A Lively Guide to Those Expressions, Terms and References You Ought to Know but Might Not, Farragut Publishing, 1990).

  10. Bill Straass said

    I have heard this idea that AIDS is caused by the drugs used to treat it. My view of this is that it is bunk. I got HIV in 1989 from a blood transfusion. It was not diagnosed until 2002 when I was all but dead from AIDS. I clearly had AIDS, but had never taken the drugs. I recovered after taking the drugs.

    Bill Straass

    • Henry Bauer said

      Bill Straass:
      One can’t generalize from a single case. Many people have had quite different experieences than you have.
      The evidence is quite clear that “HIV” doesn’t cause AIDS and that AIDS isn’t contagious or infectious; see The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, Jefferson (NC): McFarland 2007, and innumerable posts on this blog: e.g. death rates from “HIV disease” are independent of age.
      All the antiretroviral drugs are quite toxic, but some physicians use them FOR SHORT PERIODS to combat undiagnosed occult inflammation: search “Juliane Sacher” or “Claus Koehnlein”.
      The original early-1980s AIDS was a lifestyle disease caused by nitrite poppers, frequent infections by STDs, frequent courses of antibiotics, generally unhealthy living cumulating to manifest illness after 10-20 years, at average age mid- to -late 30s.
      Testing “HIV+” can result from innumerable things including pregnancy, vaccinations, tuberculosis, etc. etc.
      Blood transfusions can cause damage for any of a large number of reasons.

      It is excellent news if you are now healthy after a long period of not being healthy. However, you were not ill from “HIV”; and you should have your doctor(s) monitor carefully so long as you are taking antiretroviral drugs.

  11. Kevin said

    Having obsessively researched, documented and chronicled the failure of every prerequisite, promise, threat and prediction of the unproven HIV/AIDS theory since 1987-all the while witnessing untold numbers of friends and heroes suffer and die while taking prescribed anti-HIV medication- I want to thank you for your work and your ongoing efforts to reveal the truth about the HIV lies and false dogma. Keep up the vitally important work! End the HIV myth!!

    • Marshall Sandefur said

      I never did fall for this HIV/AIDS hypothesis. I have had sex with quite a few women who are so called “HIV positive”. None have gotten sick or ever will get sick. Money is what keeps this
      “disease” alive. Take away the financing, the whole “epidemic” would die.
      Peace and Blessing,
      Marshall Sandefur

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