HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Archive for the ‘experts’ Category

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


Posted in antiretroviral drugs, clinical trials, experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV transmission, Legal aspects, sexual transmission, uncritical media | Tagged: , , | 8 Comments »

Disproving HIV/AIDS theory

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2018/02/06

After an old friend, a notably successful scientist, had read my book, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory (McFarland, 2007), he remarked that the trouble was that it would lead to undermining trust in science overall.

But he was assuming, as do so many scientists, and so many of us who have been promoting HIV/AIDS dissent and AIDS Rethinking, that it is the facts of the matter that count; that evidence and factual reality are bound to carry the day in public discourse and public policies. That is simply not so nowadays.

Perhaps it was not so far from the truth in times past, when there was a “basic” or “pure” science carried on by relatively disinterested truth-seekers who were able to command sufficient research resources that came without strings attached.

Was that a purely mythical past?

Not really. During my student days and early faculty jobs at an Australian university, technical facilities were automatically available to the faculty: glass-blowing and other technical needs were provided by permanently employed service people; routinely used chemicals were on hand; reasonable sums of money were provided for purchase of more exotic items; publication was supported by secretarial staff, and of course in those times one’s articles were published in journals that did not demand “page charges” or other fees. We studied what interested us, what we thought would be fruitful, not what others told us to study.

That was half a century ago. There was competition, of course, but it was within civilized bounds. Peer reviewers could make bad decisions, perhaps partly under the influence of bias, but there was not much attempted suppression of rivals just for the sake of personal advancement, and outright fraud was rare indeed. We studied and practiced science pretty much as idealists. A fellow academic of my generation told me about 20 years ago that he still had his graduate students read Sinclair Lewis’s Arrowsmith for its early-20th-century message of honesty, integrity, disinterestedness.

Younger people will doubtless read the above with incredulity. Nowadays a career in scientific research begins by working on what the scientific consensus considers appropriate. One spends a significant number of years in postdoctoral and other temporary positions waiting for the rare tenure-track slot to open up, competing then with other hopefuls who are also supported by long publication lists and records of research support; or perhaps one goes into “applied” research in industry or government. In any case, the research that gets done and then published is determined by the prevailing scientific consensus, not by the individual inspiration and ingenuity of an intellectual entrepreneur. In 1980, the recipient of a prize for scientific work described the subterfuge needed to get research support for anything novel, unconventional (Richard A. Muller, “Innovation and scientific funding”, Science, 209 [1980]: 880‑883).

No mechanism exists for mainstream science to rethink accepted ideas. Rather, everything works against dissent from contemporary theory. When it comes to HIV/AIDS, a simple thought-experiment will illustrate the point:

Try to imagine how Anthony Fauci, Robert Gallo, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention could possibly manage face-saving explanations for how and why HIV doesn’t really, after all, cause AIDS; how the Food and Drug Administration would find excuses for all its approvals of toxic antiretroviral drugs. Imagine the reactions of all the researchers who had avidly pursued mindless “research”, and all the science groupies and researchers who had defended wrong theory and maligned and persecuted the “denialists” who now turned out to have been right all along. Think about what would be said and done by the Gates Foundation and all the other charities and non-profits who had diligently worked to provide health care for people being made sick not by disease but by medication.

It seems to me simply inconceivable that “the scientific consensus” and its agents could ever retract about HIV/AIDS.

So the task of disproving HIV/AIDS theory is not a matter of offering contradictory facts, which have in any case been available in profusion for decades (The Case against HIV The task is first to persuade society that “science” can get it wrong, even and in particular on a matter that affects such huge numbers of people and huge expenditures by governments and by non-profits and charities.

Society as a whole needs to be disabused of mistaken beliefs about science, in other words. My old friend had it backwards: until unquestioned faith in science is replaced by sensible skepticism and a demand that evidence for claims be openly presented and defended against skeptics, evidence-based criticisms of HIV/AIDS theory will not gain even a foothold in the conventional wisdom, the popular media, the mainstream discourse.

On my other blog, I’ve just posted a detailed discussion of the salient points:

What has been so damaging is not so much sheer ignorance as beliefs that are wrong (Dangerous knowledge).

Wrong views about the history of science are rampant throughout society; especially how drastically different today’s science is from the idealized popular view of it — which, as I opined above, was actually not that unrealistic only about half-a-century ago (Dangerous knowledge II: Wrong knowledge about the history of science).

The popular belief is wrong, that science is infallible and made so by “the scientific method”. The fact is that the scientific consensus always defends itself vigorously even when it happens to be wrong (Dangerous knowledge III: Wrong knowledge about science).

There exists a vicious cycle: HIV/AIDS dissent (and dissent from any contemporary scientific consensus) is dismissed out of hand because science couldn’t possibly be wrong about so important a matter; but until it is realized that the scientific consensus on many contemporary issues is flawed, dissent in any given case will be dismissed out of hand, preventing the accumulation of the evidence that science nowadays is pervasively untrustworthy (Dangerous knowledge IV: The vicious cycle of wrong knowledge).

Posted in Alternative AIDS treatments, antiretroviral drugs, experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism, scientific literacy, uncritical media | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

How has HIV/AIDS theory survived the evidence against it?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/07/05

In “How to defeat HIV/AIDS dogma?” I asserted that it is essential that official pronouncements not be accepted automatically and uncritically, that it is necessary for the realities of contemporary scientific activity be recognized, including understanding of how drastically different science is from popular views based on earlier times.

Most people know something like this about science:
It’s done by the scientific method which guarantees that theories are not acceprted unless the evidence supports them. Scientific knowledge is reliable because science is reproducible; and science self-corrects whenever new information requires it.

But if those things were true, then it could not be generally accepted that HIV causes AIDS.

Those statements about science are not obviously or seriously wrong about the first couple of centuries of modern science, roughly 17th century to mid-20th century. However, much about scientific activity changed out of sight following World War II, and by now those earlier descriptions don’t fit at all, they are absurdly and damagingly misleading.

How drastically science has changed and what its characteristics are nowadays are discussed in my newly published Science Is Not What You Think — How it has changed, Why we can’t trust it, How it can be fixed.

The “fix” refers to the possible establishment of a Science Court to adjudicate expert differences over technical issues. That was first suggested more than half a century ago when the experts were at loggerheads and arguing publicly over whether power could be generated safely using nuclear reactors.
More recently, some legal scholars have pointed out that such an institution could help the legal system to cope with cases where technical issues play an important role.
Beyond that, I suggest that a Science Court is needed to force the prevailing “scientific consensus” to respond substantively to critiques like those offered by HIV/AIDS dissenters. At present, Gallo and Fauci and the range of HIV/AIDS groupies get away with ignoring the arguments published by Peter Duesberg, Kary Mullis, and innumerable others, and the voluminous and mounting evidence that “HIV” cannot be the cause of AIDS — see The Case against HIV).

Posted in consensus, experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism, scientific literacy, uncritical media, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: | 8 Comments »

Vaccines: The good, the bad, and the ugly

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/05/21

Only in recent years have I begun to wonder whether there are reasons not to follow official recommendations about vaccination. In the 1930s, I had the then-usual vaccinations, including (in Austria, perhaps Europe) against smallpox. A few others in later years when I traveled quite a bit.

But the Andrew Wakefield affair *, and the introduction of Gardasil **, showed me that official sources had become as untrustworethy about vaccines as they have become about prescription drugs.

It seems that Big Pharma had just about run out of new diseases to invent against which to create drugs and had turned to snake-oil-marketing of vaccines. We are told, for example, that 1 in 3 people will experience shingles in their lifetime and should get vaccinated against it. Have one in three of your aged friends ever had shingles? Not among my family and friends. One of my buddies got himself vaccinated, and came down with shingles a couple of weeks later. His physician asserted that the attack would have been more severe if he hadn’t been vaccinated — no need for a control experiment, or any need to doubt official claims.

So it’s remarkable that the Swedish Government has resisted attempts to make vaccinations compulsory (“Sweden bans mandatory vaccinations over ‘serious health concerns’” by Baxter Dmitry, 12 May 2017).

That article includes extracts from an interview of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., on the Tucker Carlson Show, which included such tidbits as the continued presence of thimerosal (organic mercury compound) in many vaccines including the seasonal flu vaccines that everyone is urged to get; and the huge increase in number of things against which vaccination is being recommended:

“I got three vaccines and I was fully compliant. I’m 63 years old. My children got 69 doses of 16 vaccines to be compliant. And a lot of these vaccines aren’t even for communicable diseases. Like Hepatitis B, which comes from unprotected sex, or using or sharing needles – why do we give that to a child on the first day of their life? And it was loaded with mercury.”



“Autism and Vaccines: Can there be a final unequivocal answer?”
      “YES: Thimerosal CAN induce autism”

** See “Gardasil and Cervarix: Vaccination insanity” and many other posts recovered with SEARCH for “Gardasil” on my blogs: and

Posted in consensus, experts, Legal aspects, unwarranted dogmatism in science, vaccines | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Quality of life when diagnosed HIV+ or AIDS

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/05/20

An obscure publication from Universidad Juan Agustín Maza (in Argentina) came to my attention via Research Gate:

“Iniciativas para mejorar la calidad de vida de personas con VIH positivo y SIDA: Revisión del Diagnóstico, el Pronóstico y la Terapéutica a la luz de la Ciencia y de la Ética” by M. E. Molina, J. Abou Medelej, S. Perez Daffunchio, D. E. Crisafulli & J. Álvarez.
[Initiatives to improve the quality of life of HIV-positive and AIDS-diagnosed patients: A review of diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy from viewpoints of science and ethics]

The full article is in Spanish with an Abstract in English:
“The first cases of AIDS occurred in 1981. There are not fully appropriate therapeutic interventions for treating this medical condition yet. People who are diagnosed with positive HIV or AIDS suffer a poor quality of life and receive medication that produces severe adverse reactions. The purposes of this investigation are: * To review the existent reports on the etiology, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of HIV. * To bring the affected people updated information for healthcare and improvement of their quality of life. We have analyzed a significant number of papers published in several countries on these topics, and we have found the following inconsistencies: * HIV risk behaviors: According to the CDC in the United States, the Estimated Per-Act Probability of Acquiring HIV from an Infected Source, by Exposure Act (heterosexual) is about one in one thousand for woman, and about one on two thousands for man. Nevertheless, an investigation conducted through the University of San Francisco, California, on 442 discordant heterosexual couples no seroconversion was observed throughout the ten years the research lasted. (1985-1995). * Diagnostics methods: In Argentina, we employ the ELISA screening method, posteriorly confirmed by a western blot test, but in the United Stated this last is discouraged since 2014. * Medication: The drugs that are used to treat HIV are DNA chain terminators which interfere with the normal functioning and replication of normal cells. As a result, damage in the immune system and the mitochondrial DNA are reported. We wonder what should we inform the patients and people in general about all these. We require the experts´ opinion on the ethical management aspects. Due that the diagnostic tests employed may result in false positives, and the fact that the medication is highly toxic, we recommend that patients with HIV positive diagnosis re-test their condition at least once a year”.

This all seems quite sound, but after citing false positives, no sexual transmission, and the toxicity of ARVs the last sentence is quite a let-down.

The mention of vaccines is also a mixture of sound and doubtful:[Google translation]:
Regarding the possible development of vaccines.
The difficulty in developing vaccines due to HIV mutation has been explained: the high coding error rate produced by the reverse transcriptase enzyme and the recombination of various phenotypes of HIV in the DNA of infected cells (Montagnier L., 2008). However, other retroviruses that respond to the same replication mechanisms do not produce mutations that impede the development of vaccines. Example: Murine Leukemia Virus. Likewise, a purification of up to 20% of HIV has not been reported to date, so doubts remain about the specificity of antibodies used in diagnosis (Leung, Hans Gelderblom Extended Interview min 37.48) , 2011”

Evidently the authors accept HIV/AIDS theory but are puzzled by its internal contradictions.


Posted in antiretroviral drugs, experts, HIV tests, HIV transmission, Legal aspects, sexual transmission, vaccines | Tagged: | 15 Comments »