HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/07/27

The mainstream literature reveals quite clearly that essentially nothing is known or understood about “HIV” or about “AIDS”; but to appreciate these revelations one must be prepared sometimes to read more or less between the lines.

A fine opportunity for that was provided by the recent 20th International AIDS Conference. The lack of knowledge is not admitted overtly but it clearly underlies what the HIV/AIDS protagonists regard as grist for further research funding. For example, When will there be a cure?
“‘We have plenty of data telling us we can make progress,’ said Françoise Barré-Sinoussi . . . . But she’s not foolish enough to give a timetable. She recalled predictions in the mid-1980s that a vaccine would be relatively simple to design. As of now, of course, there is still no vaccine even close to clinical availability.”

30 years of promises, announced breakthroughs later retracted, and other “progress” haven’t gotten anywhere.

What needs to be known?
“Which cells are targets? How do they work? Are there antibodies that can be manipulated? How? What cells can harbor latent HIV? Can they be located and destroyed?”

“[W]e don’t know how to eradicate the virus. We don’t know all its hiding places. And we don’t have good tools to measure it even in the hiding places we know about.”

And of course the central question remains, how on Earth “HIV” is supposed to destroy the immune system. No credible mechanism has been discovered during these 30+ years (section 1.3 in The Case against HIV).

One doesn’t know whether to laugh or to cry in recalling Robert Gallo’s assertion a couple of decades ago: “We probably know more about how HIV produces its pathology than
about the pathological mechanism of virtually any other microbe” (p. 296 in Virus Hunting: AIDS, Cancer, and the Human Retrovirus: A Story of Scientific Discovery, 1991).

As to the Mississippi baby that had been thought to have been cured by massive antiretroviral treatment starting at birth, a couple of years later she was found to be still (or again!?) “infected”. More conundrums:
Ø The child had no detectable immune response to HIV before the rebound. What was keeping the virus at bay?
Ø Sensitive tests could find no latent virus. Where was HIV hiding?
Ø What triggered the rebound?

Dissidents, of course, DO understand what’s going on. There’s no such thing as “HIV infection”. “HIV+” is a very non-specific biomarker for a number of conditions, chiefly those associated with weakened immune systems involving CD4 cells; but not only those: for example, pregnancy is a “risk factor” for testing “HIV+” (section in The Case against HIV).

HIV/AIDS theory rests on the ignorant mistake that is so prevalent, notably in medical “research”: confusing an association with a causal relationship. “AIDS” victims often tested “HIV+” because some or many of the conditions umbrella’d under “AIDS” are associated with weakened immune systems and the propensity to test “HIV+”.

By construing positive tests as signs of infection, mainstream researchers are chasing phantoms, inevitably turning up conundrums and mysteries and enigmas, endlessly chasing red herrings and wild geese. Browse the rich crop of absurdities generated in this way.

Nothing about HIV/AIDS theory makes sense or fits the evidence, but the mainstream continues its insane pursuits: insane because they keep repeating the same blunder-based activities and expecting that somehow there will be a different result, that understanding instead of conundrums will somehow pop up.


15 Responses to “OFFICIAL: NOTHING is KNOWN about HIV/AIDS”

  1. Matt Pettersen said

    Hi Dr Bauer,

    Below is link to an interview with Nobel Laureate Sydney Brenner who has made many significant contributions in the field of molecular biology . This interview gives great insight into the blind leading the blind situation that HIV/AIDS research is permanently mired. Once Gallo’s fraudulent original research got a top level political seal of approval; no one has ever been able to successfully challenge it due to the nature of the scientific bureaucracy that has developed over the past four decades. A great point in the interview is that a lot of great innovators such as Fred Sanger would have never have survived the current “quantity over quality” ethos that prevails now.


    • Henry Bauer said

      Matt Pettersen:
      Thanks! A very nice piece from an insider who knows what he’s talking about.

  2. This short post is one of your most important. I note (not for the first time) the notion of HIV ‘hiding’. It isn’t just that there is no evidence for the hypothesis – that’s no crime. What is criminal is the apologetical essence of the hypothesis. Apologetics is not scholarship (although scholars can be apologists) – it’s spin, smoke bombs and trap doors; a method to persuade by evading.

    Note the similarity between HIV ‘hiding’ and the ‘missing heat’ that was otherwise expected from anthropogenic CO2:

    “A lot of the energy from global warming has been hiding lately under the surface of the Pacific Ocean—and in the future it will come back out in a burst of heat, a new study concludes.”


    I used to be ambivalent to AGW theory until I started looking into it. I see just as much apologetics there as I do with HIV/ AIDS. Compare immune restoration syndrome with the claim from Christopher Keating that,

    “we are in a natural occurring cooling period. In other words, if it wasn’t for us, the climate would be cooling right now.”


    How convenient! The reason why there is a plateau in global warming is because anthropogenic CO2 is neutralizing the effect of a natural global cooling!

    Can I get an Oy Vey?

    • Henry Bauer said

      Karim D. Ghantous:
      Right on! HIV/AIDS is the exemplar of how unreliable “medical science” has become, and human-caused global warming is the exemplar of how unreliable science in general has become when it is coupled with issues of great public importance.
      Your illustrations are sound and telling. The proponents of these evidence-unbased theories keep making up “explanations” from the tops of their heads in trying to cope with facts that contradict their hypotheses. They tell “just-so” stories (the Just So Stories for Little Children are a collection written by the British author Rudyard Kipling. Entirely imaginary descriptions of how elephants grew trunks, giraffes long necks, etc. The HIV/AIDS and global-warming “explanations” are similarly based purely on speculation and not evidence)

  3. Leo Klebanov said

    Thank you again for what is proven thousands of times to thousands of independent thinkers: “HIV does not cause AIDS”, but it is time to make our dissident position even stronger by offering alternative explanation to the nature of AIDS. So far nobody wants to discuss this, and when I try to raise the question- I am either ignored, or given the links which contain no relevant information. I am eager to participate in this discussion, because I have something important to share.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Leo Klebanov:

      What would you add to my Sections 2 and 9.1 in The Case against HIV?

      • Leo Klebanov said

        Section 2 discusses definitions of AIDS. No single one of them makes sense, as you mentioned, but in section 9.1 you ask the question “what cause AIDS?” Naturally, you can not come up with any rational answer, if the question itself contains senseless core. Your logic perfectly serves the purpose of exposing the absurdity of “orthodox” HIV theory, but in order to move further we need to base our theory on some definition which does make sense.
        Obviously, if somebody is subjected to the influence of external factor, which destroys immune system ( like, for example, gamma-radiation ), this case can not be interesting for our theoretical research.
        In your discussion you completely ignored the fact there are many cases of progressively suppressed immune status in individuals who never had STD’s, never took ARV’s or recreational drugs, followed healthy lifestyle with good nutrition. Nor HIV, neither dissident theories can explain these cases!
        Let us accept definition of AIDS as: “progressive suppression of immune status with gradual decline of CD4 count with no immune-suppressive or CD4-suppressive factors (such as drugs of different kinds; malnutrition; radiation; some non-HIV infections; etc.) “, Now we have something to work with.
        I am ready to share the information, which can answer most of the questions surrounding AIDS mysteries, but only if somebody is really interested. Most probably nobody, because if orthodoxy is looking for profits, dissidents are looking for publicity, and nobody really cares about finding the truth. Sorry.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Leo Klebanov:
        Since it’s deficiency of CD4 cells and “HIV” is not a factor, “AIDS” is the same as “idiopathic CD4-T-cell lymphopenia”, whose origin is a mystery and whose treatment amounts to trying to strengthen the immune system

      • Leo Klebanov said

        Exactly, the only interesting definition of AIDS will be mature T-cell leicopenia, and somebody is very much interested in considering its origin a mystery, in order to assign opportunistic HIV to the diagnosis of AIDS-1.

      • Leo Klebanov said

        Idiopathic CD4-T-cell lymphocytopenia (leucopenia) [ICL] was introduced in 1993, when HIV theory was promoted and well established. Since there were no any differences between this lymphocytopenia and AIDS, except HIV positivity, “mysterious nature” epithet was assigned to the first one, in order to save HIV theory.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Leo Klebanov:
        Yes, exactly. ICl, one might say, was invented in order to preserve the HIV/AIDS theory.

      • Leo Klebanov said

        It is well known in some European countries (Russia, for example) that about 10% of blood cancers are leucopenic (normally they are leukemic). There are many signs ICL is adult T-cell cancer. I have my mother’s article to share if you are interested.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Leo Klebanov:
        What is the citation for that article?

      • Leo Klebanov said

        Click to access 201301-OnTheNatureOfAIDS-Klebanova.pdf

        Thank you very much for your interest to this matter.

  4. Regarding Robert Gallo’s assertion a couple of decades ago: “We probably know more about how HIV produces its pathology than about the pathological mechanism of virtually any other microbe” (p. 296 in Virus Hunting: AIDS, Cancer, and the Human Retrovirus: A Story of Scientific Discovery, 1991)……my answer goes like this:

    Yes, you even knew that in approximately 70% of cases HIV testing cross reacted with mycobacterial infection and should in that case (which constitutes according to WHO, one third of the world) not be used. You knew it through your colleague, veterinarian Max Essex and his pupil, Congo physician Oscar Kashala as they had published the study early on. You remember Max, the one who did the cat house studies and first claimed that a feline retrovirus caused AIDS in cats.

    (BTW, excellent article/references, Henry. Amazing stuff.)

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

%d bloggers like this: