HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Who can be trusted about science? Not the Royal Society of London or the National Academy of the United States

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2016/01/02

Those of us who have bothered to look into the evidence about HIV and about AIDS know that the mainstream dogma, that HIV causes AIDS, has no credible evidence in its favor; and that prestigious and authoritative institutions and organizations persistently disseminate the false belief and try to suppress the evidence and those who present it. The most obvious disproof of HIV=AIDS is that HIV is incapable of causing any sort of epidemic because it is not sufficiently transmissible, less than 1 per 1000 acts of unprotected intercourse (and only 1.4 per 1000 acts of unprotected receptive anal intercourse, supposedly the most risky).

At the Rethinking AIDS Conference in Oakland,  I had pointed out that this resistance to contrary evidence is unfortunately not uncommon, it is evident on a variety of topics; see also my book, Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth (McFarland 2012).

One topic on which mainstream dogmatism contrary to evidence is most pronounced is global warming and climate change: do human activities contribute appreciably to these phenomena, outweighing natural forces? The evidence says no, or at least there is no empirical proof of it. Nevertheless, all mainstream groups insist that the science is settled — and that includes the Royal Society of London and the National Academy of Science of the United States, which mislead disgracefully on this topic.

 

18 Responses to “Who can be trusted about science? Not the Royal Society of London or the National Academy of the United States”

  1. I think both the HIV=AIDS=Death and Global Warming/Climate Change/AGW dogmas hijack people’s good intentions and the desire of ‘progressives’ to base their beliefs on science. But importantly it also relies on people’s intellectual laziness and respect for status and position in society.

    • Henry Bauer said

      David Crowe.

      Yes indeed.

      I guess that the scare quotes around “progressives” means you’re referring to the advocates of political correctness, so again YES.

      But too many other people too interpret science to fit their personal beliefs. It’s hard not to do that, because we can’t possibly look at enough evidence on all the topics of interest, so we have to go by instinct, who to trust about what….

  2. HIV is still an essential vitamin said

    The Royal Society recently did a thing celebrating how ~wonderful~ is the peer-review system. Without any mention of the massive criticisms of that system. Because it serves to defend the dogmas of the research establishment (of which the RS is a part) wonderfully well. (Meanwhile my application for a long-overdue FRS is in the post.)

  3. realpc920 said

    I more or less agree with HIV/AIDS skepticism and I think there are many obvious problems with the mainstream research and consensus. However there are certain claims made by believers that I have trouble arguing against. For one thing, I do believe that AIDS can be an infectious disease, and I do not agree with those it’s caused by drugs and lifestyle. That may be partially true, but there are many examples of people who caught it through sex or through birth.

    Believers also claim that HIV-like viruses have been given to animals and has caused them to get AIDS. It is hard to find out if that is true or not because the articles I have read so far say different things.

    I feel very certain that the ARV drugs are harmful or lethal and that they really are not “therapy” for HIV/AIDS at all. But it’s awfully hard to convince believers of that. They think there is plenty of evidence that ARVs are effective and not very harmful.

    Some of the so-called research I have read seems to be utter propaganda and lies. But I am not sure.

    In any case, the subject is confusing and I think both sides are partly wrong.

    • Henry Bauer said

      realpc920:

      The trouble is that “HIV” tests react positive to umpteen things, including illnesses that may be contagious. So some HIV+ people may transmit to others something that causes illness and also causes a positive HIV test.
      HIV = AIDS is entirely wrong; see The Case against HIV for a summary.
      Dissenters do not all have the same view on everything, all they agree on is that the mainstream is wrong.
      There’s plenty of room for confusion, and there are some things that remain in my opinion unexplained by anybody.

      • realpc920 said

        Ok, thank you. The only thing I really would like to find out right now is whether it is possible to cause AIDS in an animal by infecting them with an HIV-like virus. That would show that it is possible for HIV to cause AIDS in humans. I have not been able to find a clear answer to that question.

      • There have been tons of experiments with SIV. And only rarely have animals (Chimps etc) got sick. But if one is locked in a cage for 10 years and then has immune decline. Bingo, millions of dollars in research funding opportunities!

      • realpc920 said

        And I am familiar with the case against AIDS and I agree with it. Right now I am only confused about what has really happened with animal research.

      • Henry Bauer said

        realpc920:
        I haven’t tried to keep up with HIV/AIDS research since concluding that HIV = AIDS is simply wrong. Long ago efforts to infect Chimpanzees with HIV all failed. SimianIV is supposed to be the ape equivalent of HIV but doesn’t seem to cause illness. I did a very short search via Google and didn’t come up with anything recent. You could try asking the CDC or NIH.

      • HIV is still an essential vitamin said

        “whether it is possible to cause AIDS in an animal by infecting them with an HIV-like virus.”
        “AIDS” doesn’t exist, it is a pretend condition invented to generate research jobs. People had the same symptoms before “AIDS”, they just didn’t call it that.
        So your question is a bit like “is it possible to make circular squares by cutting the corners off squares?”. or “Is it possible to obtain minus one apple by taking three apples out of a bag containing only two?”.
        If your thesis is based on bogus, dishonestly concocted concepts anyway, no amount of research can make any difference.

      • Henry Bauer said

        HIV is still an essential vitamin:

        I agree

    • Guy said

      Is the standard to which ARVs are compared not “monotherapy” (AZT in high doses.)? If so, then they are proving that low doses of poison are “effective” at increasing survival time when compared to high doses of poison.

  4. realpc920 said

    Ok thanks. The only recent thing I found said they were using macaque monkeys. They created an HIV-like virus and infected the monkeys, but had to damage their immune systems in order to cause AIDS. No control group, of course.

  5. lukas said

    realpc920:i think that a point is that hiv itself should provoke diseases in animal and not “hiv-like” virus as you say.Hiv has not proven to cause anything in monkeys,look at this as how health they look after 30 years: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2034439/Lab-chimps-freed-caged-fior-30-years-injected-HIV.html. Some points against simian model have been made by peter duesberg simian virus cause disease if an antiviral response have not been developed,than,suspiciously simian virus causes diseases in shorter time if compared to hiv,after weeks and not many years,so that it couldn’t be a suitable model.This is clearly stated in his paper of 1987.Recent mainstream SIV research is characterized also (as hiv research) by many inexplicable factors:: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253032/

  6. benjo said

    I am a skeptical myself, but even for me there are things I find hard to digest. For one thing the fact that gay people tend to test positive more frequently than heterosexuals, and since gay people are notoriously more promiscuous, this is taken by most as the confirmation for the existence of a sexually transmitted agent.
    Prof Bauer in a recent post here suggested a correlation with some mysterious gay gene but I do not buy it.. too far fetched to me.. but I cannot think of another plausible explanation except than an infectious agent… Any other suggestion?

    • Henry Bauer said

      benjo:
      I don’t believe I ever suggested a gay gene.
      I think the dysbiosis theory might explain some cases.
      All sorts of conditions give HIV+ results.
      Maybe the gay men who choose to be frequently tested are exposing themselves to a variety of risks, including STDs and other infections.
      To get a satisfactory answer, one would need to study intensively those gay men who test HIV+ to look for possible reasons.

    • HIV is still an essential vitamin said

      This really isn’t anything like as complicated as being supposed.
      Some gay men take some drugs in order to enhance sexual activity. They are likely to be immunologically compromised by that regular drug-taking (as just about all drugs are poisons to greater or lesser extent). Ergo more likely to have impaired immune aka “have aids”. In addition there could well be immune effects of anal penetration anyway, and it’s unlikely that there’s been any proper research.

  7. lukas said

    This article also well explain why siv infection in monkeys cannot be a suitable model for human aids: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070923193631.htm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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