HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Archive for the ‘HIV does not cause AIDS’ Category

How to support Rethinking AIDS?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/08/23

The fact is that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS (or any other illness): no proof has ever been published that HIV causes AIDS, and the evidence against the idea is copious, see The Case against HIV. Yet it seems as though all the official sources and all the media are completely convinced that this mistaken notion is correct. How to change that?

A couple of dozen books have been published, and articles, even a few in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, but they have not dented the conventional wisdom. Rethinking AIDS (RA) is an organized attempt to bring awareness of the facts. The crucial and fundamental point is that the facts by themselves change no minds; one needs to give people a reason to question the official stance, and even before that one needs to spread the word that there exist informed and competent people who offer strong reasons for doubting the conventional wisdom. The task is one of public relations, not of science.

So Rethinking AIDS needs more visibility. Word of mouth is good, and it is worth recruiting one individual at a time — and indeed some significant number of people have been helped greatly when they chanced on RA or one of its members: HIV+ people (and their friends or relatives) who have been rescued from toxic medication or from deadly anxiety or harm from an unenlightened legal system. Much more is needed, though, more publicity; and one way toward that is by means of a public conference.

RA did indeed hold a conference in 2009 in Oakland, CA. Some details including the program can be seen at, and videos of the talks are available at the yellow buttons for “Streaming” do not work, but the red buttons do, they download a .mov file playable on many media players (download takes just a few minutes for each talk with my fast broadband connection through my cable company ISP). I had found the Oakland conference an extraordinary experience, see The Family of Rethinking AIDS, which gives some sense of the benefits such an occasion can bring. Another wonderful experience was a conference in Vienna the following year.

Why nothing similar since then?
Because a conference requires two things: Workers and funds. Absolutely essential are one or more people willing and able to invest the enormous time and effort needed to organize: an appropriate venue including accommodation possibilities and audio and video facilities; inviting of speakers, screening of solicited and unsolicited potential talks; publicity; but above all there is needed money. Nothing can be done about a venue or about speakers without guaranteed funds to cover the basic expenditures, for example hotels require a guarantee before being willing to reserve a group of rooms and conference facilities.

RA has the willing and able people, but it needs the funds. We have talked about the desirability of another conference for years, and now our President, David Crowe, has come across a possible way to raise the needed money: crowd-sourcing, an approach that has shown its possibilities in raising funds for a variety of research projects that were not able to find support through official avenues. Please have a look at, please consider adding your material support, and please tell every potential contributor about this initiative.


Posted in Alternative AIDS treatments, Funds for HIV/AIDS, HIV does not cause AIDS, uncritical media | Tagged: | 5 Comments »

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: | 6 Comments »

Why do gay men test “HIV-positive” more frequently than others?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/03/29

AIDS was first noticed and described among gay men.

In 1984, it was concluded, officially but mistakenly, that AIDS was caused by HIV.

That AIDS is not caused by HIV follows from innumerable pieces of evidence (The Case against HIV, for example that the incidence of AIDS does not correlate with instances of “HIV-positive” (1).
Why then do gay men test “HIV-positive” more often than others?

That is of more than academic interest. If there is some inherent connection between HIV and gay men, and since AIDS is inextricably connected historically to gay men, the two connections reinforce the mistaken conventional wisdom that HIV causes AIDS.

Well: Do gay men really test “HIV-positive” more often than others?

According to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, “Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States. From 2005 to 2014, HIV diagnoses decreased in the United States by 19% overall, but increased 6% among all gay and bisexual men … . Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men made up an estimated 2% of the population but 55% of people living with HIV in the United States in 2013. If current diagnosis rates continue, 1 in 6 gay and bisexual men will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime, including 1 in 2 black/African American gay and bisexual men, 1 in 4 Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men, and 1 in 11 white gay and bisexual men” (“HIV Among Gay and Bisexual Men” [Page last updated: September 30, 2016] ).

In New Zealand, it is claimed that 1 in 15 gay and bisexual men are “HIV-positive” (New Zealand AIDS Foundation, “Three reasons gay guys are more likely to get HIV”) — the three reasons given include anal sex and the statistical likelihood of having sex with “HIV-positive” men.

A survey of global data for the years 2007-2011 reported (2) relative rates of “HIV-positive” for gay men as compared to all adults, in different regions of the world, showing consistently higher prevalence among gay men; once again the authors suggest that the greater likelihood of transmitting HIV by anal sex is the reason.

But since we know that HIV is not sexually transmitted (see section 3 in The Case against HIV), what could be the real reason for this disparity?

When greater incidence of “HIV-positive” among gay men is cited in terms of numbers found to be positive, one can suspect that it is because gay men are more likely to be tested in the first place; but no such explanation in terms of sampling bias can be invoked when the disparity appears to be in relative rates.

We know also that positive “HIV” tests are not proof of the presence of the purported retrovirus HIV; and we know that innumerable physiological circumstances may produce a “positive” result on an HIV test, see sub-section 3.2.2 in The Case against HIV). Those circumstances include many types of infections and ailments, as well as some conditions that are not ill health , say pregnancy or vaccinations, or some quite non-specific indications of perhaps quite minor threat to health, say oxidative stress.

It is not easy to see, however, why any or all of those “false positives” should be more common among gay men across cultures and regions. Perhaps anal sex, with possible tissue damage and transfer of semen, could induce release of substances reflective of physiological stress. Where antibody “HIV” tests yield an indeterminate result, it is known that heterosexual men and women tend to be reported as negative but gay men as positive. Perhaps too there is a nocebo effect: gay men have been indoctrinated to worry about “getting HIV”, and such worry is likely to be greatly exacerbated when anticipating or undergoing testing. Perhaps social persecution has also brought on average a higher rate of anxiety and somehow unhealthy living among gay men.

No combination of those possibilities seems adequate to explain the reported variations in rates, however. Moreover, as to anal sex, it is unlikely in the extreme that this is in itself notably dangerous to health: humans have been practicing anal sex for millennia, and if it were a significant risk to health, that would surely have been noticed very long ago.

Could it be that there is a biological, genetic basis for a tendency toward homosexuality? That suggestion has been ventured at times, albeit without convincing proof coming to hand as yet (3).

It is quite certain, though, that the tendency to test “HIV-positive” is strongly determined by genetics: the relative rates of testing “HIV-positive” are universally race-associated (chs. 5 & 6 in [1]), and substances taken to be characteristic of HIV are characteristic of commonly occurring human endogenous retroviruses, HERVs (4).

I find it amazing that mainstream researchers venture hand-waving non-explanations (5) for the much greater incidence of “HIV-positive” among African Americans than among white Americans, even though “risky” behavior is less among African Americans, and national rates of “HIV-positive” are highest in countries with a large proportion of people of African ancestry, namely Africa and the Caribbean. The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention has published innumerable data showing persistent and consistent variations by race, for instance (above) the rates of 1 in 11 for white Americans, 1 in 4 for Hispanics, and 1 in 2 for black Americans.

But the most likely reason why gay men test “positive” is also a major reason for the “AIDS” illnesses and deaths in the early years: INTESTINAL DYSBIOSIS; search this blog for all the posts describing this condition and confirming the plausibility of this hypothesis.

Why all this matters so much

The continuing refrain in the media about the prevalence of “HIV-positive” among gay men reinforces the mistaken notion that “HIV-positive” is dangerous to health, in particular that it presages overt illness, AIDS, and death. At the very least this strengthens the force of the mainstream dogma and makes it more difficult to present the Rethinking case. Very likely it exerts a nocebo effect that itself contributes to poor health.

It needs to be said, shouted, over and over again:

“HIV-positive” does not mean definitely ill, it does not mean infected by HIV, and anyway HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. Anyone, gay or not, who is told they are “HIV-positive”, should consult a physician who is not indoctrinated into HIV=AIDS, see Rethinking AIDS Medical Professional List.


  1. Henry H. Bauer, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, McFarland 2007.
  2. Chris Beyrer, Stefan D. Baral, Frits van Griensven, Steven M. Goodreau, Suwat Chariyalertsak, Andrea L. Wirtz & Ron Brookmeyer (2012). “Global epidemiology of HIV infection in men who have sex with men”, The Lancet,  380 (9839) 367-77.
  3. Brian P. Hanley (2011). “Dual-gender macrochimeric tissue discordance is predicted to be a significant cause of human homosexuality and transgenderism”, Hypotheses in the Life Sciences, 1 #: 63-70.
  4. Etienne de Harven (2010). “Human endogenous retroviruses and AIDS research: Confusion, consensus, or science?”, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 15: 69-74.
  5. Gregorio A. Millett, John L. Peterson, Stephen A. Flores, Trevor A. Hart, William L. Jeffries 4th, Patrick A. Wilson, Sean B. Rourke, Charles M. Heilig, Jonathan Elford, Kevin A. Fenton & Robert S Remis (2012). “Comparisons of disparities and risks of HIV infection in black and other men who have sex with men in Canada, UK, and USA: a meta-analysis”, The Lancet, 380 (9839): 341-8.

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, HIV and race, HIV as stress, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV transmission, HIV/AIDS numbers, sexual transmission, uncritical media | Tagged: | 5 Comments »

Larry Kramer in Love and Anger

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/01/30

Larry Kramer in Love and Anger is a 2015 HBO documentary. It recounts most of the history of AIDS through Kramer’s personal involvement and it is largely accurate in what it discusses, though omitting and ignoring some crucial points.

Watching it brought home to me once again what an enormous tragedy this has been and still is and will continue to be because the ultimate crux remains unaccepted: namely, that “science” including medical science can go wrong, and that there are no systemic safeguards against that, no checks or balances, because minority voices within the scientific community are not attended to, instead are castigated and persecuted.

This film gives a good account of the fear that spread among gay men as a mysterious syndrome of illnesses was bringing deaths, several hundred thousand in about half-a-dozen years. But the film also misses the opportunity to make the case against HIV, despite some significant clues. Thus Kramer’s 1978 novel, Faggots, is correctly described as his jeremiad against the fast-lane lifestyle that included much health-damaging use of “recreational” drugs. The film might well have been pointed out that this preceded the appearance of AIDS and could indeed explain why so many people became very ill — as some of them recognized, for instance Michael Callen and his physician Sonnabend. Again, Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) is mentioned as a characteristic AIDS disease, but the film neglects to point out that KS virtually dropped out of the picture after some years as insightful gay men abandoned the use of the nitrite inhalants (“poppers”) that cause this damage to blood vessels (“AIDS KS” is probably different from the classic KS.)

Completely missing is the tragic story of how HIV came to be the accepted cause of AIDS, essentially by declaration at a press conference before any scientific publication.

Kramer’s initiatives are properly credited for revision of the FDA’s procedures for approving drugs — but missing is a discussion of the damaging consequences, not only because of the toxicity of AZT and later “anti-retroviral” drugs but because the fast-track approval system is now abused routinely by Big Pharma to bring to market avalanches of new drugs that reveal their toxicity within a short time after marketing: note the TV and print announcements by lawyers about class-action suits against such medications as Pradaxa, Xeralto, Invokana, and others at the very same time as the drug companies continue to advertise those drugs with dishonest descriptions of potential benefits (“remission is possible”, for example) and down-playing of “side” effects, for instance in TV ads showing healthy actors instead of actual patients actually on the drugs.

The film applauds the introduction of protease inhibitors, but fails to describe their toxicities, again despite obvious clues. Thus the film opens and closes with Kramer in hospital after a liver transplant; and there is a short clip of Kramer warning earlier about the side effects of his medications. The New York Times review of the film of course says, misleadingly, “liver transplant necessitated by his H.I.V. infection” instead of “made necessary by the anti-retroviral medication including protease inhibitors”: “Drug-induced hepatitis and hepatic decompensation (and rare cases of fatalities) have been reported with all PIs” (Table 14, Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1-Infected Adults and Adolescents, 8/8/2014).

And of course nothing is said about dissent from HIV/AIDS theory.

So this documentary can serve only as a reminder of the tragic history of AIDS. I realized also how the nature of the tragedy has changed. Initially it was the mis-identification of the cause as HIV and the subsequent hundreds of thousands of deaths from AZT. But nowadays this has been compounded by the abuse of HIV tests as proof of infection, whereby no sector of society is free from the danger of mis-diagnosis and subsequent mistreatment. Since pregnancy seems to stimulate positive “HIV” tests, especially with women of African ancestry, women and their fetuses and babies are being harmed in significant numbers and will continue to be until the HIV/AIDS blunder is corrected.

For the facts about HIV and AIDS, see The Case against HIV. For why HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS, and the story of how the error was made and entrenched, read The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory [Jefferson (NC): McFarland 2007].

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, clinical trials, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV tests, HIV/AIDS numbers, uncritical media | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

How to defeat HIV/AIDS dogma?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/01/01

The evidence that “HIV” did not and does not cause “AIDS” is overwhelming, and has been set out in dozens of books. The point is also demonstrated in The Case against HIV, which lists >900 publications, most of them mainstream sources.

It’s no secret that HIV/AIDS dogma nevertheless remains hegemonic among official institutions, national and international.

I’ve come to believe that this will not change until a large enough proportion of people stop accepting automatically whatever official sources claim about scientific matters.

The necessary skepticism about seemingly authoritative statements about science can only be learned by coming to understand how science is done, and in particular how it is done nowadays. That means coming to realize how drastically science has changed since about the middle of the 20th century, from largely believable to automatically and uncritically believable only at one’s peril.

I’ve set out the pertinent history of science on my other blog: How Science Has Changed — notably since World War II.



Posted in HIV does not cause AIDS, scientific literacy, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »