HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Anti-HIV drugs kill the immune system

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/12/18

Anti-retroviral drugs are toxic in a number of ways, see The Case against HIV, section 5.3.

The specific reported toxicities include the killing of T-cells (section, which is supposed to be what “HIV” does. A new addition to this section is the report that integrase inhibitors also contribute to loss of T-cells:

R. Prasad, “IISc: HIV drug elvitegravir lowers the efficiency of immune system”Hindu Times, 16 December

The research article is Nishana et al., “HIV integrase inhibitor, Elvitegravir, impairs RAG functions and inhibits V(D)J recombination”, Cell Death & Disease, 8 (2017) :e2852. doi: 10.1038/cddis.2017.237; it is open access.

Abstract (PMID: 28569776)
Integrase inhibitors are a class of antiretroviral drugs used for the treatment of AIDS that target HIV integrase, an enzyme responsible for integration of viral cDNA into host genome. RAG1, a critical enzyme involved in V(D)J recombination exhibits structural similarity to HIV integrase. We find that two integrase inhibitors, Raltegravir and Elvitegravir, interfered with the physiological functions of RAGs such as binding, cleavage and hairpin formation at the recombination signal sequence (RSS), though the effect of Raltegravir was limited. Circular dichroism studies demonstrated a distinct change in the secondary structure of RAG1 central domain (RAG1 shares DDE motif amino acids with integrases), and when incubated with Elvitegravir, an equilibrium dissociation constant (Kd) of 32.53±2.9 μM was determined by Biolayer interferometry, leading to inhibition of its binding to DNA. Besides, using extrachromosomal assays, we show that Elvitegravir inhibited both coding and signal joint formation in pre-B cells. Importantly, treatment with Elvitegravir resulted in significant reduction of mature B lymphocytes in 70% of mice studied. Thus, our study suggests a potential risk associated with the use of Elvitegravir as an antiretroviral drug, considering the evolutionary and structural similarities between HIV integrase and RAGs.


This is just one illustration of the much-neglected fact that prescription drugs, so often advertised as “specific” to treatment of a disease, may do all sorts of other things as well. Chemicals, molecules, simply do what corresponds to their chemical structure, they don’t discriminate according to what we would like them to do. There are no “side” effects, there are just effects, even though the pharmaceutical industry tries to obfuscate that. Millions of people are being fed statins, for example, to lower their blood-cholesterol levels without being told that statins also interfere with coenzyme Q10 which the body makes and uses in all energy-related reactions; which is why a “side” effect of statins is muscle weakness.


11 Responses to “Anti-HIV drugs kill the immune system”

  1. Dob said

    “Deadly medicines and organised crime” by prof Peter Gotsche lives up to its title and more.

  2. voza0db said


    After the initial fraud – the official declaration that the “HIV is the cause of AIDS” made by some political sad figure, and the commercial agreement between the USA and France, after these two events, the only purpose of the medical and pharmaceutical system is to profit, no matter what.

    AZT was also a very good drug – for killing people – and it is still used in small doses!

    In Portugal a few years ago the MSM made a piece about “HIV/AIDS”. The main “actress” was a young woman with the “HIV+” label glued to her since birth (her mother was a drug addict so…)! This young woman reveled that she didn’t even known the names of the drugs she was taking, and still doesn’t know, much less what are the side effects, other than the ones the good doctor told her!

    In the end the system depends on the stupidity of it’s users in order to survive.

    Best regards.

    • Dob said

      More precisely it is not stupidity (if you define that as low IQ or lack of wisdom). What is involved is a huge ideological system from organisations dominating our society, such as “universities”, “governments”, and “reputable” companies. According to this ideology, it goes without saying that big, famous, well-funded organisations are full of genuine experts who tell the truth, whereas pseudo-expertise is found in small low-financed obscure groups and lone individuals. According to this ideology there are valid criteria for distinguishing the genuine from the false expertise, such as “peer review”, “qualifications”, “professorships”, and so on. And only properly “accreditted” organisations can grant these labels.
      Thanks to the brainwashing of children by the huge propaganda of the “educational” system, it is very difficult to see through this. And yet the reality is very different, as is explained more fully at

      • Henry Bauer said

        Globalization includes globalization of information, so authoritative resources are at a premium. But Established institutions are always self-interested and not to be automatically believed. In times past — say pre-Reformation, pre-Enlightenbment, pre-Scientific Revolution — the established authorities were Religion and their priests and Monarchies and their royalties. Since the late 19th Century, SCIENCE has been the established authority. But those who are authorized to speak for science, who are pretty much globally believed, are self-interested individuals and self-interested institutions. So the conventional wisdom, and national and international policies and actions, are at odds with the actual scientific evidence on quite a few matters: carbon dioxide as prime cause of climate change; HIV as cause of AIDS; Big-Bang origin of universe; drug-based medicine; and more: see Science Is Not What You Think: How It Has Changed, Why We Can’t Trust It, How It Can Be Fixed

      • Dob said

        A nice title there, do you also have it on Amazon (to see what the reviewers are saying, probably “he’s an aids denier!!!”)?
        Meanwhile it turns out that in uk you are only allowed to call your organisation an “Institute” or “Institution” if it has an established reputation. Because we all know that established reputations are really reliable etc….

      • Henry Bauer said

        Just one review so far but it’s enthusiastic. So-so announcement in ProtoView. Very nice reviews in New Concepts in Global Tectonics and (in German) in Zeitschrift fuer Anomalistik

      • Dob said

        I’ve been studying book publishing lately and it’s a complicated business. Trad publishers are only much good if you are a celebrity or have a lot of “followers”. Otherwise they put an excessively high price (as on yours) and do no marketing effort and you don’t even own it any more. (Though could buy it back if it “flops”.)
        Five star reviews on Amazon are viewed with scepticism, most people like myself first check out the negative ones as they can kill the credibility quickly (or alternatively kill the critics’ credibility!).
        Some abysmally poor books become “bestsellers”, such as Neurotribes, an absolute pile of h=-sh*t, badly written, hopelessly edited, and mostly wrong – but fitting the big pharma agenda so…..

      • Henry Bauer said



  3. Even worse than drugs having unintended consequences (because no matter how a drug is administered, it can’t help affecting other areas of the body) is that one of those consequences (immune suppression) is a symptom of the disease the drug is supposed to be alleviating.

  4. Lukas said

    Hi Mr Bauer this recent scientific paper shows enthusiasm by stating that hiv, I say whatever it is and wether it exists or not, can be fought and maybe cured naturally. Give a look:

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 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: