HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

The case against HIV

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2013/10/23

Many facts show that HIV/AIDS theory is wrong. Several dozen books have discussed various reasons for not believing HIV/AIDS theory. I came to realize that HIV/AIDS theory is wrong when a sentence in Harvey Bialy’s book led me to collate the results of published “HIV” tests and to realize that what those tests detect is not an infectious nor a sexually transmitted thing.

The publication of my book about that  and comments about it and to  this blog which I had then started  made me learn a lot more, for example some blog posts show how mortality of “HIV+” people and “AIDS” patients further proves that “HIV” is not a killing agent and that “AIDS” is not a definite disease.

Since AIDS Rethinking started a quarter century ago and I took it up only a decade ago, a great part  of the literature wasn’t known to me. So it occurred to me that it would be useful to have a summary  of the many points that disprove HIV/AIDS theory. My first attempt at producing such a summary is “The Case against HIV”, with sub-headings

  1. HIV does not cause AIDS.
  2. The plain evidence about AIDS.
  3. The plain evidence about HIV.
  4. Failings of HIV/AIDS theory.
  5. What antiretroviral drugs do.
  6. Damage done by HIV/AIDS theory and practice.
  7. Hindrances to making the case against HIV.
  8. How could such a massive blunder come about and persist?
  9. FAQs: Questions — sometimes rhetorical only — posed by adherents to HIV/AIDS theory.

As I say in the document, “Additions and corrections are welcomed, indeed solicited” — by direct e-mail to or as comments on the blog.

9 Responses to “The case against HIV”

  1. lukas said

    Dear professor Bauer,
    at point of your summary you state that “it is a mistery,why cervical cancer was ever declared an aids disease”
    Prof. Duisberg has always said in his interviews or videos that cervical cancer was added trickily by the cdc immediately after his remarks.He,infact,had noticed that venereal deseases tend to affect men and women at same percentuage while aids used to affect at the beginning mostly men.So the cdc,adding cervical cancer to the list,start catching also women among aids patients,and the percentuages started getting balanced to match the ones of a veneral disease.So what you say it’s a mistery is fully explained.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Thanks, in the next revision I will change to
      “Cervical cancer should never have been declared an AIDS disease. Its incidence had been declining steadily throughout the AIDS era 491,492.”
      It has been suggested that there was pressure to show that “HIV” was a threat to women as well as men. The CDC justified its classification like this:
      Invasive Cervical Cancer

      Several studies have found an increased prevalence of cervical dysplasia, a precursor lesion for cervical cancer, among HIV-infected women (60, 61). In a study of 310 HIV-infected women attending methadone maintenance and sexually transmitted disease clinics in New York City and Newark, New Jersey, cervical dysplasia was confirmed by biopsy and/or colposcopy in approximately 22%, a prevalence rate 10 times greater than that found among women attending family planning clinics in the United States (Wright TC, personal communication; 62). Several studies have documented that a higher prevalence of cervical dysplasia among HIV-infected women is associated with greater immunosuppression (Wright TC, personal communication; 61,63). In addition, HIV infection may adversely affect the clinical course and treatment of cervical dysplasia and cancer (64-69).

      Invasive cervical cancer is a more appropriate AIDS-indicator disease than is either cervical dysplasia or carcinoma in situ because these latter cervical lesions are common and frequently do not progress to invasive disease (70). Also, cervical dysplasia or carcinoma in situ among women with severe cervicovaginal infections, which are common in HIV-infected women, can be difficult to diagnose. In contrast, the diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer is generally unequivocal.

      Invasive cervical cancer is preventable by the proper recognition and treatment of cervical dysplasia. Thus, the occurrence of invasive cervical cancer among all women — including those who are HIV-infected — represents missed opportunities for disease prevention. The addition of invasive cervical cancer to the list of AIDS-indicator diseases emphasizes the importance of integrating gynecologic care into medical services for HIV-infected women.”

      In my opinion, the data are better explained in the usual way: MANY conditions produce a positive “HIV” test. ALL “HIV+” results are false positives in the sense that they do not reflect the presence of an infectious retrovirus.

  2. david burd said

    Henry, you’ve hit the “nail on its head” when you said the earlier years of “aids” was basically unknown to you.

    Starting in 1981 through 1987 when AZT (aka Retrovir) was OK’ed by the FDA, there were about 20+ extremely toxic drugs given (and begged for by principally the homosexual community) as informal experiments and informal ‘trials’). All of these deadly drugs – for instance suramin and ribavirin – with even AZT dubbed Compound S by the National Cancer Institute, promoted by Sam Broder aka Mr. AZT.

    All during this, Project Inform run by Martin Delaney (and tacitly approved by Anthony Fauci soon to become the AIDS Dictator at NIH/NIAID) smuggled (not hard to do) hundreds of thousands of doses of such toxic/deadly drugs. The Feds, such as Fauci and Broder, winked at procedural regulations.

    Much documentation and published medical papers shows the immensity of these panicked experiments, literally causing virtually all “aids” deaths by the lethal drugs – falsely attributed to “HIV.”

    Contact me if you care to, Cheers! David M Burd

    • Henry Bauer said

      David Burd:

      Thanks for reminding of this history.

      Though I’ve read some about this, I’m not clear whether the various things tried were intended to combat a virus or whether they were hopes for boosting the immune system—it was recognized that immune systems were damaged almost immediately, but the virus explanation wasn’t officially accepted until years later.
      I do agree that it wasn’t “HIV” that caused deaths, but I’m not sure that those things did either — or at least not all of them. In the early 1980s, people recognized as having AIDS were already close to death when diagnosed: the mortality rate was around 60-70% until about 1987 (HAART saves lives — but doesn’t prolong them!?): in my view, because of health quite ruined by years of fast-lane lifestyle. Rigorous switching to a more sensible regimen could help considerably, as Michael Callen (“Surviving AIDS”) showed by living another dozen years, under Dr. Joseph Sonnabend’s guidance; and their colleague in advocating “safe sex” and sensible living, Richard Berkowitz (“Stayin’ Alive: The Invention Of Safe Sex”) is still alive.

      From about 1987 to about 1996, the mortality rate declined slowly but steadily, in my view because a good proportion of gay men came to understand what really caused AIDS: lots of poppers and other recreational drugs and associated unhealthy living. I think the death rate would have declined even more if people hadn’t been taking AZT.

      The immediate halving of the death rate 1996/7 was because high-dose AZT monotherapy was replaced by cocktails with lower doses; and I calculated from this that about 150,000 people were killed by AZT up to 1996 — out of a total of about 235,000 death attributed officially to AIDS.
      Up to 1987, there had been about AIDS 25,000 deaths, in my view mainly from irreversibly damaged health.

      Do you have any specific data to indicate that those various things that had been tried unofficially were seriously toxic, as opposed to not doing any good?

      • david m burd said

        Yes, I have abundant references, Doctors’ names and their verbal accounts, specific drugs, pubMed references , etc. Please contact me privately – I can supply the proof of the huge majority of deaths were principally by the treatment drugs, though I agree IF the patients also stuck with their self-destructive recreational drugs (poppers, etc.). David M Burd

  3. Roger said

    Dear Henry Bauer – this is an astounding piece of work and surely a remarkable resource. It enables people like me to quickly, easily and effectively add scientific references to whatever argument might be at play. Extraordinary. Thank you. Roger Swan.

    • Henry Bauer said


      I really appreciate your remarks, it was my hope that this would be useful in responding to mainstream proponents and in talking with people who might potentially be convinced of the real state of affairs.

      PLEASE let me know if you find errors or can add further useful references.

  4. Kay said

    @David Burd I have been researching HIV and AIDS and came across one of your blogs from 2006. I tried to send you an email via the contact information provided, but I was given a “Mail Undeliverable” notice. I have some questions and request for advice from you about a good friend of mine, trying to cope with the supposed death sentence of being HIV positive. Is there an updated contact you can provide me with? I would very much appreciate it. -K

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: