HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

OFFICIAL!   HIV does not cause AIDS!

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2018/03/22

The World Health Organization has issued a press release reporting that Swiss researchers have demonstrated that HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS because the so-called isolates of HIV routinely used in studies of HIV and of AIDS do not actually contain live infectious particles of a retrovirus.
Reporters have so far being unable to get responses to questions they have addressed to a variety of institutions and individuals:
The World Health Organization was asked why it had ignored its own sometime epidemiologist who had pointed to the fudging of data to create apparent epidemics [1].
Robert Gallo was asked where he regretted having described as flat-earthers [2] the scientists who had disagreed with him.
Anthony Fauci was asked whether he regretted threatening journalists who covered dissenting voices about HIV [3].
Dr. Nancy Padian was asked why she had not recognized the significance of her failure to observe during ten years any transmission of HIV among sexually active couples of whom one was HIV+ and the other not [4].
The Centers for Disease Control were asked to explain how they could have issued patently wrong statistical information.
The Food and Drug Administration were asked how they could have approved the use of toxic substances as purported medication for a non-existent virus.
The drug company Gilead Sciences was asked to explain how it had decided that its drugs were capable of killing a non-existent virus.

All that is a fable, of course, or rather a parable — it is not true literally but it points to important truths.
Perhaps it may serve to drive home the important insight that it is quite inconceivable, quite impossible, that any official institution would admit that HIV/AIDS theory is wrong, it would raise too many unanswerable questions.
And yet the evidence is so copious and clear-cut that the theory is in fact wrong (The Case against HIV).

That hugely important fact about the role of science in the modern world, that a wrong theory could become generally accepted, reflects what President Eisenhower warned against more than half a century ago, namely, that public policy could be captured by a scientific-technological elite.
That has now actually come to pass not only in the case of HIV AIDS but also over the theory of human-caused global warming and climate change (Anthropogenic Global Warming, AGW, and ACC).
For that latter case, Christopher Booker [5] recently offered Groupthink as explanation for how an elite group could come to believe and promote a faulty belief.
Booker came upon the concept of Groupthink in the work of psychologist Irving Janis [6], who had discussed the idea in explaining how disastrous failures in American foreign policy had come about, for example in Vietnam and the muffed invasion of Cuba.

A crucial part of the context that makes for Groupthink is that it would be fatal for the elite group if its belief were not accepted.

That’s the point of the fake news story with which I began this blog post: It illustrates that it would be an act of collective suicide for the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, innumerable charities and foundations, and many activist groups if they were to admit that they had been wrong in what they had vigorously promoted and defended for several decades and which had led to expenditures of tens of billions of dollars. The credibility of leading institutions would be shattered and innumerable individuals would be publicly shamed and their careers and livelihoods destroyed.

The analogy with high finance is straightforward: HIV/AIDS theory is simply “too big to fail”.

So that will not be allowed to happen. Rather, the mainstream HIV/AIDS behemoth will continue to sweep aside challenges by ad hominem polemics (labeling dissenters as morally despicable denialists) and by mis-direction on substantive points, for example, claiming that even temporary recovery of health by some sick HIV+ individuals proves that antiretroviral drugs are effective and that HIV had caused the illness.


[1]    James Chin, The AIDS Pandemic, Radcliffe 2007

[2]    Robert Gallo, Virus Hunting: AIDS, Cancer, and the Human Retrovirus: a Story of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, 1991, p. 297

[3]    Anthony Fauci, “Writing for my sister Denise”, AAAS Observer, 1 September 1989, p. 4

[4]    Padian et al., “Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Northern California: results from a ten-year study”, American Journal of Epidemiology, 146 (1997) 350–7

[5]    Christopher Booker, GLOBAL WARMING: A case study in groupthink — How science can shed new light on the most important ‘non-debate’ of our time, Global Warming Policy Foundation, GWPF Report 28, 2018. A summary is in “Groupthink on climate change ignores inconvenient facts”, 21 February 2018

[6]    Irving Janis, Victims of Groupthink (1972; Groupthink (1982), both Houghton Mifflin


31 Responses to “OFFICIAL!   HIV does not cause AIDS!”

  1. Dob said

    Also very noticeable in respect of vaccine pseudoscience

  2. Boris Starosta said

    April Fools! This post comes to us a week early.

  3. Gregor said

    A reference [x] for the initial claim/statement “The World Health Organization has issued a press release reporting that Swiss researchers have demonstrated that HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS because the so-called isolates of HIV routinely used in studies of HIV and of AIDS do not actually contain live infectious particles of a retrovirus.” is missing.
    Maybe for a “good” reason.

  4. mo79uk said

    “Some, including the World Health Organization, have actually scrapped the term ‘AIDS’ altogether, instead referring to ‘clinical stage 4’.”

    So they’re basically denying the term AIDS, ergo AIDS denialists 😉

    • Dob said

      “that millions of people are living healthily with HIV.”
      Which will be how they squirm over to the reality.

    • The Bauer Hoax killed zillions said

      Henry Bauer doesn’t really exist. Of course this information will be censored from this page, condemned as “denialism” by people who can’t produce a single peer-reviewed controlled study in evidence of existence of this Henry Bauer.


    • Henry Bauer said

      That link has the following:
      “There are nearly 100 different subtypes of HIV, with new subtypes being discovered every day. Most HIV infections in the Western world are of subtype B. Most of the research that we have on HIV is also on subtype B, though it accounts for only about 12 per cent of all global HIV infections. We have discovered that the explosion of HIV in the Philippines is due to a shift from the Western subtype B to a more aggressive HIV subtype AE.”
      which illustrates that the so-called “isolates” of HIV are actually mixtures of all sorts of things, not necessarily containing even virions of a retrovirus; see 3.1.3 in The Case against HIV

  6. Mike Koval said

    first of all thanx Dr Bauer for the voice of reason and excellent Scientific analysis of this so called theory. for people who are positive this represents a dilemma (to take or not yatrogenic pills) that almost amounts to natural selection. most of people most likely dont need these pills and they definitelyundermine their health.
    based on your ideas and other material and personal stories i personallly believe
    that testing positive correlates with some health problems not necessarily immunodeficiency. large fraction of poz people of 50% or more dont experience any health problems predicted by hiv scam. for those with health problems -they should be approached individually and might be solved by much safer medicines and approaches than HAART.

    here are two of my questions regarding the practical aspects of hiv theory:

    1 ) the pillar of the theory is sexual transmssion. why viral load is not measured in mens semen ? the sample preparation for PCR is much less complex. as the main culprit in transmission in homo and heterosexual acts semen must be the subject fir viral load not blood.
    doing quantitative pcr from such complex sample as blood plasma is mind blowing. does the sequencing of the bands of right size always gives Hiv sequences?

    2) we all know and its written in the manual for viral load kits thats its not good for diagnosis. i presume the way they determine hiv type is by sequencing pcr fragments from viral load test. if im correct.
    there are tons of reported cases when blood of hiv neg people showed high viral load and consistently. thats partly why its not used for diagnosis -high number of false positives.
    my question : did anyone ever sequence the pcr fragments obtained as viral load in hiv neg people? do these pcr bands considered false positive represent hiv sequences or not?

    • Henry Bauer said

      Mike Koval:
      Excellent questions, to which I have no answers. I’ve asked colleagues at Rethinking AIDS for help with them.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Mike Koval:
      Here’as the only answer my colleagues have come up with so far:

      First of all, it’s a good question why PCR is not run from semen for transmissibility. However, they might argue that it’s the viral load in the blood that has health consequences, therefore for directing health (i.e. deciding to change drugs) then measuring it from blood plasma makes more sense (just guessing).
      Why is PCR on blood plasma more complex than semen?
      And I don’t believe a PCR analysis involves bands, that is an antibody or antigen analysis (e.g. Western Blot).
      There are some reports of HIV-negative people with measurable viral load, I’m not sure there are a lot. I think a better question regarding HIV-negative people is why there hasn’t been a widespread survey of HIV-negative people looking for viral load in order to validate the rate of false positives on the test. Probably not done because the rate would be very high and that would be very hard to explain.

      • mkoval said

        PCR on bloodsample is definitely more complex. there are more cells and debris in there. of course PCR involves bands. bands of amplified DNA
        sequences based on primers added. these primers as it was pointed out before could easily pick up sequences in our genome from homologous endogenous retroviruses. i think there is good chance that sequences derived from viral load of negative people would be perfectly HIV sequences. it was observed in several published studies that hiv sequences were expressed in certain cancer patients who were negative. of course that survey wont be done, its risky to undermine the big theory. but if its true that hiv has endogenous origin thru some genome rearrangements (in immune cells?) the sequences they get in viral load in negative people should also be hiv sequences i would guess. they never check i presume

  7. Thanks Dr. Bauer,

    I was trying to look for this press release but I coudn’t find it in the official website:
    It would be nice to read the complete original document to draw our own conclusions, if you have it somehow, could it be possible for you to share it with us?

    Thanks in advance!

    • Henry Bauer said

      You missed this part of what I wrote: “All that is a fable, of course, or rather a parable”.
      I was trying to make the crucial point that officialdom, the mainstream, the conventional wisdom, are so invested in the correctness of HIV = AIDS that it is simply inconceivable that there will ever be a straightforward admission that it was a mistake. Rather, over the decades it will just fade away.

      • Oh! I see!!
        It’s true, I didn’t get it right.
        I see now what is your point and I think that it will just fade away in few more decades…
        But anyway, we the people are the ones that are still spinning the wheel, without our actions it wouldn’t go much farther, remember waht happened with the great expectations of the H1N1 flu pandemic, it was finish in one year, because there was a big response of tlhe people, not the media, not scientist, only trough alternative net. But, of course, HIV/AIDS is much more complicated, it involves stigma (doble or triple stigma actually), discrimination and decades of intense fear and brainwashing. Only we can stop it, not scientist, not mass media, they have tried and it was too much to fight with the maistream rules, in a fixed scenario and with marked cards. But ordinary people are much more free to do and say things that scientists and journalists, and professionals in general, can not do or say because they can put their careers and their lives at risk. [I know is risky now even for ordinary people too, but in a diferent way]

        Thanks for your time and your incredible work!! it’s a precious legacy we are going to take farther…

      • Henry Bauer said

        Raúl: Of course it is necessary to keep fighting. But I’ve come to think that it is also necessary that “science” as a whole be treated more realistically instead of just accepting the “scientific consensus” on everything automatically, as happens nowadays. See Science Is Not What You Think — how it has changed, why we can’t trust it, how it can be fixed (McFarland, 2017

      • Absolutely Henry!! I already read your book and it was astonishing for me, a great discovery to find someone that express ideas with which I felt so identified… I also read the other one on AIDS “The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory”, wich I found also overwhelming evidence of the failure of the infectious theory of AIDS…
        Thanks a lot for those two books!!! great job!!! I have both on my shelf and it helps me a lot with my works…

      • Henry Bauer said

        Thank you!

      • Problem with Henry’s books is they are published by a commercial (“proper”) publisher (i.e. the conventional book publishing model). The way the conventional system works nowadays, only books by celebrities (Trump, Oprah…) get pre-designated as “bestsellers”, and all other books get about five minutes of half-effort promotion and then are left to sink or swim. The only advantage of a commercial publisher is that they only give you a small fraction of any profit.

        And in Henry’s case, the publisher is an “academic” one which sets the prices too high for the non-specialist market. The way the market works is that a book priced at $35 is assumed to be “expensive”, even though the book may be many years of work by the author and contain info or other content of great value.

        The traditional publishing model is best ignored by any non-“celebrity” who is writing for a reason other than profit. Direct publishing for instance via or createspace costs zilch and leaves the rights and full control with the author. It might be worthwhile to try to buy back those books from McF – they aren’t exactly getting rich from them anyway.

        Meanwhile more info on another perspective on the failure of modern science can be seen at Notable how little overlap there is.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Xi Jin Putin:
        The problem with self-publishing is how to market, let alone the cost. I rather pride myself on never having had to pay to get one of my 12 books published. McFarland has good contacts with libraries and sells hundreds of copies of its titles because of its good reputation.

      • Dear Henry Trumpbot,
        With all due viral infections….
        You are misinformed about “self-publishing”.

        A high proportion of the best books have been published by the authors themselves (because they believed in them), rather than by the commercial publishers who are in the business of only selling things that make a profit regardless of real worth.

        You don’t have to “pay” to get your book direct published without a “proper” publisher.

        How many sales has McF enabled for you? Hundreds per book? A decent book on an important subject should be selling thousands. What promotion are they doing outside the libraries? As said, the price is too high for the wider market, which inevitably slashes your sales.

        The preview on Amazon is rather dumb in missing out the first page of Preface and first page of Ch 1. These should be the MOST IMPORTANT pages which readers should definitely be previewing to be told why they should buy the whole thing.

        Paying for proper marketing is not a vanity exercise but a combination of wise investment and worthy campaigning.
        The aids hoax dominates the scene precisely because it INVESTS millions on self-promotion of its cheap nasty message. You don’t defeat it by being proud that you haven’t used any money yourself.

        Anyway our Brics countries are preparing a joint invasion of the Useless States to introduce proper civilisation over there soon. Cheers etc.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Xi Jin Putin:
        You say
        “A high proportion of the best books have been published by the authors themselves”.
        Could you offer examples to quench my disbelief?
        Years ago — no, DECADES ago — I contacted Vantage Press, a classic vanity publisher, who explained quite honestly about the small odds of recouping one’s investment.
        A very few instances of best sellers are always cited, but not what proportion they are of all the self-published books.
        Real publishers also provide copy editing, which is sorely needed. My interest in off-beat matters brought me to read quite a few self-published works, and all too often they are quite spoiled by lack of competent copy editing.

      • It doesn’t dawn on you that just as the corporate propaganda about hiv is untrue, ditto the corporate propaganda from the corporate publishing dinosaurs.

        Some of the best books (unique classics) I have encountered were direct published:
        Amalgam Illness by AH Cutler
        Cure tooth decay by Ramiel Nagel
        Dumping Iron by David Mangan
        Dissolving Illusions by Suzanne Humphries (re vaccines)
        What Color is your Parachute (10 million copies sold)
        A book by an anonymous NHS whistleblower.
        NONE of those would have been published by “proper” publishers because they didn’t fit their market preconceptions or corporate conditions.

        Meanwhile the bookshops are full of the most appalling drivel, corporate propaganda and clickbait for the market of fools who trust others to do their thinking for them. For instance I’ll bet any number of books about hiv which never mention you except as some sort of charlatan. It is very hard to find high quality books in the conventional publishing streams, and now virtually impossible (partly because decent authors are going direct instead).

        Some other peoples’ lists:
        · A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens (1843) …
        · Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman (1855) …
        · The Joy of Cooking by Irma S. Rombauer (1931) …
        · 114 Songs by Charles Ives (1922) …
        · Swann’s Way by Marcel Proust (1913)

        As for editing, you should learn a lesson from “Urtext” editions of music. The editorial “improvements” have been truly abysmal and thankfully we now have these de-edited best editions in their place.

        I have read many “properly” published books and they are often very poorly edited, especially if they are not mass market (as the subject of science studies certainly isn’t). By contrast, author-published books can be a true work of art, because the editor actually cares and knows what the objective is.

        “what proportion they are of all the self-published books.”

        …is irrelevant, as the zillions of drivel duds have no impact anyway. More to the point is that a high proportion of the most valuable books are direct-published, not least because “proper” publishers are strongly focused on “me too” of what is already selling – i.e. nothing really original.

        ”Real publishers also provide copy editing, which is sorely needed.”

        Of very varying standard. If a high sales mass market celebrity they will write “your” book for you. If not, they will not take anything like as much care as a skilled competent author. They can never know the subject as well as the author themself. The only feedback I’ve managed to get on my own is “very well written” from my mother who is always negative about my efforts! – and a certain professor who when asked what needed changing, said “nothing needs changing”. Because I am a writer/editor of the highest standard who will not allow second best.

        “quite a few self-published works, and all too often they are quite spoiled by lack of competent copy editing.”

        Indeed. Some writers lack self-editing ability. If you don’t get round to learning editing skill, that will put yourself at the mercy of others’ editing, bad or worse. A fully competent writer is his own self-editor, as reflected in those Urtext editions which have thrown the edited editions in the bin.

        As for vanity presses, in the past it required a lot of money to do a print run and then lots of storage and delivery. Either you persuaded some company to buy your book, or else you just happened to have the money to spend to show off. The world is now very different. Yes there are millions of trash self-published, but so what, there are millions of twat professors too. Tons of junk food everywhere but it doesn’t mean you should stop eating!

      • Furthermore, as an author-publisher you can hire editors yourself, along with cover and interior designers. The crucial thing is that YOU remain the boss and the owner, with complete control and profits.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Xi Jin Putin:

        You answered!

      • “You answered!”
        Sorry Sir Henry but je ne understands the significance of this sentence. Please enlighten me. Oh maybe you need an editor there…..(lol)

      • Henry Bauer said

        I asked for examples and you gave tem

      • ….in the context that your whole site is about the difficulty of persuading people to change their minds….
        (Some people are better off getting a publisher, for instance major celebs, people who can’t actually write or don’t want to, or are just doing a “me too” on the latest hot topic (Isis, Brexit, Trump,).)
        More examples:
        Lynne Farrow the Iodine Crisis.
        Various books by Dr David Brownstein (rather poorly edited and presented due to his having an easily sold audience anyway).
        The Hypothyroidism Revolution by Tom Brimeyer.

  8. Andy said

    Hi Henry, do you have a link to the press release, or the Swiss study?

    • Andy:
      Did you miss “All that is a fable, of course, or rather a parable”?
      My point was just to illustrate that no matter what the evidence may be, official agencies and leading HIV/AIDS experts will never admit they were wrong.
      The evidence has been clear and overwhelming for a long time, that HIV is not infectious and doesn’t cause AIDS, see The Case against HIV and The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, Jefferson (NC): McFarland 2007

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: