HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Posts Tagged ‘Joan Shenton’

“HIV-positive” and healthy without antiretroviral drugs

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/05/30


A film by Andi Reiss and Joan Shenton

Positive Hell is the story of five individuals who have defied their doctors and lived on for nearly thirty years with a diagnosis of death. The film highlights a network of people diagnosed HIV Positive in the province of Galicia in Northern Spain.

Some of them, like physician Dr Manuel Garrido, have never taken any antiviral drugs. He’s been swimming against the tide of medical orthodoxy for three decades.

Raquel has had two children who are fit and well and are HIV negative and her husband, Pablo is also HIV negative.

Others like Manoel took antivirals for a while and found they made him feel so ill he stopped taking them. How can this be? Haven’t we been told that everybody who tests positive is sure to die? Dothese people have a special magic gene that protects them against HIV? Or could it be that this death sentence has been mistaken all along?

The five protagonists describe their struggle to survive when faced with a death sentence, their experiences as social pariahs, their battles with doctors and the medical orthodoxy and their absolute conviction that the science behind AIDS is cruelly wrong.

Posted in Alternative AIDS treatments, antiretroviral drugs, HIV does not cause AIDS | Tagged: , , , | 7 Comments »

Evidence — Archives — Resources

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/03/08

Try to convince someone that HIV/AIDS theory is wrong, and you have a number of difficulties. An important one is that most people can’t imagine that “everyone”, the authoritative agencies, the big media, could possibly be wrong about such a thing. One way to respond to that is to show that competent, distinguished, well informed scientists explain how and why it’s never been established that HIV exists or that “HIV” cause AIDS, that in fact there’s strong evidence against those things, and that moreover the drugs used to treat patients on the basis of HIV/AIDS theory are deadly.

But how can you show people that?

Best by video of competent, distinguished, well informed scientists expounding those things.

How can you get hold of such videos?

A marvelous resource is at the Immunity Resource Foundation:
From 1990, a 40-minute documentary featuring Peter Duesberg, from British TV (Channel 4);
from 2000, an interview with President Thabo Mbeki;
from 1998, an exposition of the Perth Group’s challenge to the identification of HIV and an explanation of the vast differences between different “Western Blot” tests.
You can see John Lauritsen commenting on the 1993 Berlin World AIDS Conference; and a one-hour British TV documentary filmed in several places in Africa in 1993.

Did you know that there had been a dissidents’ conference before the Oakland one last year? At the Immunity Resource Foundation website, you can see Sky News coverage of the 1992 Amsterdam Alternative AIDS Conference.
You can see BBC’s 1989 critique of Gallo’s claim to be a discoverer of HIV; Tony Brown’s interview with John Lauritsen; Michael Callen; and lots more. And there are archives of important dissidents’ articles, and links to important websites. But the videos are a unique, irreplaceable treasure. I wrote about this invaluable resource also  a couple of years ago when it was not yet so well developed [Resources for HIV/AIDS dissidents, 1 March 2008].

The Immunity Resource Foundation has an impressive title, and it’s a registered charity, but it’s maintained by just one courageous lady, Joan Shenton, whose financial resources don’t match her courage or her ambition to make these invaluable resources available to everyone, in the hopes that eventually the world will wake up and stop killing healthy people with toxic “medications” just because a semi-functional “illness” test labels them “HIV-positive”.

Joan needs help to keep this going. She sent a budget breakdown recently, and the upshot is this: To keep the archive available, to add new materials, to cover maintenance costs, adds up to about $12,000 a year. That’s really a trivial amount for such an important venture — but someone has to pay for it. Joan has managed to cover nearly $10,000 from her own personal funds — by mortgaging her house and taking out a bank loan. Even with that, she’s short about $2000 per year and doesn’t know where that can come from — some earlier donors haven’t been able to keep up their contributions.


If you could make a regular donation,
no matter how small, please let Joan know that too

Posted in experts, Funds for HIV/AIDS, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Believing and disbelieving

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/07/03

(This is a long post. HERE is a pdf for those who prefer to read it that way).

“How could anyone believe that?” is a natural question whenever someone believes what is contrary to the conventional wisdom, say, that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, or that Loch Ness monsters are real animals.

Since the role of unorthodox views in and out of science has been the focus of my academic interests for several decades, I had to think about that question in a variety of contexts. My conclusion long ago was that this is the wrong question, the very opposite of the right question, which is,

“How does anyone ever come to believe differently than others do?” (1)


It’s a widespread illusion that we believe things because they’re true. It’s an illusion that we all tend to harbor about ourselves. Of course I believe what’s true! My beliefs aren’t wrong! It’s the others who are wrong.

However, we don’t acquire beliefs because they’re true, we acquire them through being taught that they’re true. For the first half-a-dozen or a dozen years of our lives, before we have begun to learn how to think truly for ourselves, as babies and children we almost always believe what parents and teachers tell us. Surely that has helped the species to survive. But no matter what the reason might be, there’s ample empirical evidence for it. For instance, many people during their whole lifetime stick to the religion that they imbibed almost with mother’s milk; those who reject that religion do so at earliest in adolescence.

That habit of believing parents and teachers tends to become ingrained. Society’s “experts”  — scientists and doctors, surrogate parents and teachers — tend to be believed as a matter of habit.

So how do some people ever come to believe other than what they’ve been taught and what the experts say?


I was prompted to this train of thought by receiving yet again some comments intended for this blog and which were directed at minor details, from people whom I had asked, long ago, to cut through this underbrush and address the chief point at issue: “What is the proof that HIV causes AIDS?”

Whenever I’ve asked this of commentators like Fulano-etc.-de-Tal, or Chris Noble, or Snout, or others who want to argue incessantly about ancillary details, the exchange has come to an end. They’ve simply never addressed that central issue.

And it’s not only these camp followers. The same holds for the actual HIV/AIDS gurus, the Montagniers and Gallos and Faucis. Fauci threatens journalists who don’t toe the orthodox line. Gallo hangs up on Gary Null when asked for citations to the work that made him famous.

Why can’t these people cite the work on which their belief is supposedly based?

Finally it hit me: Because their belief wasn’t formed that way. They didn’t come to believe because of the evidence.
The Faucis and Gallos came to believe because they wanted to, because a virus-caused AIDS would be in their professional bailiwick, and they were more than happy to take an imperfect correlation as proof of causation.
The camp followers came to believe simply because they were happy to believe what the experts say and what “everyone else” believes. Who are they to question the authority of scientific experts and scientific institutions?


To question “what everyone knows”, there has to be some decisive incentive or some serendipitous conjunction. I’ll illustrate that by describing how I came to believe some things that “everyone else” believes and some things that “everyone else” does not believe.

The first unorthodox opinion I acquired was that Loch Ness monsters are probably real living animals of some unidentified species. How did I come to that conclusion?
Serendipity set the stage. Reading has been my lifelong pleasure. I used to browse in the local library among books that had just been returned and not yet reshelved, assuming that these would be the most interesting ones. Around 1961, I picked from that pile a book titled Loch Ness Monster, by Tim Dinsdale. I recall my mental sneer, for I knew like everyone else that this was a mythical creature and a tangible tourist attraction invented by those canny Scots. But I thumbed the pages, and saw a set of glossy photos: claimed stills from a film! If these were genuine . . . . So I borrowed the book. Having read it, I couldn’t make up my mind. The author seemed genuine, but also very naïve. Yet his film had been developed by Kodak and pronounced genuine. Could it be that Nessies are real?
I was unable to find a satisfactory discussion in the scientific literature. So I read whatever other books and articles I could find about it. I also became a member of the Loch Ness Investigation, a group that was exploring at Loch Ness during the summers, and I followed their work via their newsletters — I couldn’t participate personally since I then lived in Australia.
A dozen years later, on sabbatical leave in England, I took a vacation trip to Loch Ness. More serendipity: there I encountered Dinsdale. Later I arranged lecture tours for him in the USA (where I had migrated in 1965). Coming to know Dinsdale, coming to trust his integrity, seeing a 35mm copy of his film umpteen times during his talks, brought conviction.
It had taken me 12-15 years of looking at all the available evidence before I felt convinced.

The unorthodox view that underwrites this blog is that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. How did I come by that belief in something that “everyone else” does not believe?
More serendipity. Having concluded in the early 1970s that Nessies were probably real, I became curious why there hadn’t been proper scientific investigations despite the huge amount of publicity over several decades. That led eventually to my change of academic field from chemistry to science studies, with special interest in heterodoxies. So I was always on the lookout for scientific anomalies and heresies to study. In the mid-1990s, I came across the book by Ellison and Duesberg, Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS (interesting info about this here ; other Ellison-Duesberg articles here).
Just as with Dinsdale’s book, I couldn’t make up my mind. The arguments seemed sound, but I didn’t feel competent to judge the technicalities. So, again, I looked for other HIV/AIDS-dissenting books, and wrote reviews of a number of them. Around 2005, that led me to read Harvey Bialy’s scientific autobiography of Duesberg. For months thereafter, I periodically reminded myself that I wanted to check a citation Bialy had given, for an assertion that obviously couldn’t be true, namely, that positive HIV-tests in the mid-1980s among teenage potential military recruits from all across the United States had come equally among the girls as among the boys. The consequences of checking that reference are described in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory.
As with Nessie, it had taken me more than ten years of looking into the available evidence to become convinced of the correctness of something that “everyone else” does not believe.

So am I saying that I always sift evidence for a decade before making up my mind?
Of course not. I did that only on matters that were outside my professional expertise.

Studying chemistry, I didn’t question what the instructors and the textbooks had to say. I surely asked for explanations on some points, and might well have raised quibbles on details, but I didn’t question the periodic table or the theory of chemical bonding or the laws of thermodynamics or any other basic tenet.

That, I suggest, is quite typical. Those of us who go into research in a science don’t begin by questioning our field’s basic tenets. Furthermore, most of us never have occasion to question those tenets later on. Most scientific research is, in Kuhn’s words (2), puzzle-solving. In every field there are all sorts of little problems to be solved; not little in the sense of easy, but in the sense of not impinging on any basic theoretical issues. One can spend many lifetimes in chemical research without ever questioning the Second Law of thermodynamics, say, or quantum-mechanical calculations of electron energies, and so on and so forth.

So: Immunologists and virologists and pharmacologists and others who came to do research on HIV/AIDS from the mid-1980s onwards have been engaged in trying to solve all sorts of puzzles. They’ve had no reason to question the accepted view that HIV causes AIDS, because their work doesn’t raise that question in any obvious way; they’re working on very specialized, very detailed matters — designing new antiretroviral drugs, say; or trying to make sense of the infinite variety of “HIV” strains and permutations and recombinations; or looking for new strategies that might lead to a useful vaccine; and so on and so forth. Many tens of thousands of published articles illustrate that there are no end of mysterious puzzles about “HIV/AIDS” waiting to be solved.

The various people who became activist camp followers, like the non-scientist vigilantes among the AIDStruth gang, didn’t begin by trying to convince themselves, by looking into the primary evidence, that the mainstream view is correct: they simply believed it, jumped on the very visible bandwagon, took for granted that the conventional view promulgated by official scientific institutions is true.

It is perfectly natural, in other words, for scientists and non-scientists to believe without question that HIV causes AIDS even though they have never seen or looked for the proof.

What is not natural is to question that, and the relatively small number of individuals who became HIV/AIDS dissidents, AIDS Rethinkers, HIV Skeptics, did so because of idiosyncratic and specific reasons. Women like Christine Maggiore, Noreen Martin, Maria Papagiannidou, Karri Stokely, and others had the strongest personal reasons to wonder about what they were being told: since they had not put themselves at risk in the way “HIV” is supposedly acquired, and since they were finding the “side” effects of antiretroviral drugs intolerable, the incentive was strong to think for themselves and look at the evidence for themselves.
Many gay men have had similar reason to question the mainstream view, and some unknown but undoubtedly large number of gay men are living in a perpetual mental and emotional turmoil: on one hand much empirical evidence of what the antiretroviral drugs have done to their friends, on the other hand their own doctors expressing with apparent confidence the mainstream view. So only a visible minority of gay men have yet recognized the failings of HIV/AIDS theory.
One of the first to do so, John Lauritsen, was brought to question the mainstream view for the idiosyncratic personal reason that, as a survey research analyst, he could see that the CDC’s classification scheme was invalid.
Among scientists, Peter Duesberg recognized some of the errors of HIV/AIDS theory because he understood so much about retroviruses and because he had not himself been caught up in the feverish chase for an infectious cause of AIDS. Robert Root-Bernstein, too, with expertise in immunology , could recognize clearly from outside the HIV/AIDS-research establishment the fallacy of taking immunedeficiency as some new phenomenon. Other biologists, too, who were not involved in HIV/AIDS work, could see things wrong with HIV/AIDS theory: Charles A. Thomas, Jr., Harvey Bialy, Walter Gilbert, Kary Mullis, Harry Rubin, Gordon Stewart, Richard Strohman, and many others who have put their names to the letter asking for a reconsideration.


To summarize:

Mainstream researchers rarely if ever question the basis for the contemporary beliefs in their field. It’s not unique to HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS researchers and camp followers never cite the publications that are supposed to prove that HIV causes AIDS for the reason that they never looked for such proof, they simply took it for granted on the say-so of the press-conference announcement and subsequent “mainstream consensus”.

The people who did look for such proof, and realized that it doesn’t exist, were:
—  journalists covering “HIV/AIDS” stories (among those who wrote books about it are Jad Adams, Elinor Burkett, John Crewdson, Celia Farber, Neville Hodgkinson, Evan Lambrou, Michael Leitner, Joan Shenton);
—  directly affected, said-to-be-HIV-positive people, largely gay men and also women like those mentioned above;
—  individuals for a variety of individual reasons, as illustrated above for John Lauritsen and myself;
—  scientists in closely related fields who were not working directly on HIV/AIDS.

That last point is pertinent to the refrain from defenders of HIV/AIDS orthodoxy that highly qualified scientists like Duesberg or Mullis are not equipped to comment because they have never themselves done any research on HIV or AIDS. But that’s precisely why they were able to see that this HIV/AIDS Emperor has no clothes — scientists working directly on the many puzzles generated by this wrong theory have no incentive, no inclination, no reason to question the hypothesis; indeed, the psychological mechanism of cognitive dissonance makes it highly unlikely that scientists with careers vested in HIV/AIDS orthodoxy will be able to recognize the evidence against their belief.
More generally, this is the reason why the history of science contains so many cases of breakthroughs being made by outsiders to a particular specialty: coming to it afresh, they are not blinded by the insider dogmas.

So there is nothing unique about the fact that the failings of HIV/AIDS theory have been discerned by outsiders and not by insiders, and that the insiders are not even familiar with the supposed proofs underlying their belief. Nor is it unique that the dogma has many camp followers who never bothered to look for the supposed proofs of the mainstream belief. What is unique to HIV/AIDS theory is the enormous damage it has caused, by making ill or actually killing hundreds of thousands (at least). The annals of modern medicine have no precedent for this, which is another reason why thoughtless supporters of HIV/AIDS orthodoxy may feel comfortable with it despite never having sought evidence for it.

So here’s the question to put to everyone who insists that HIV causes AIDS:


(1) Henry H. Bauer, Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy, University of Illinois Press, 1984; chapter 11, “Motives for believing”.
(2) Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1970 (2nd ed., enlarged; 1st ed. 1962)

Posted in experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism, prejudice | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/03/01

In my initial post I mentioned the material at, which was last updated in July 2003 (though it now appears to be in process of revision, with a new home page), and David Crowe’s website, Alberta Reappraising AIDS, for up-to-date information. That website has links to a large number of other useful sites, including the AIDS Wiki. The latter lists dissident books in several ways—by author, by title, by date, by topic: just enter “books” into the Search box; many of the books are linked to substantial information about them, sometimes extracts or reviews.

I find myself unable to keep up with all that’s potentially useful. Just now I came on the Immunity Resource Foundation, which promises to be—already is—a very useful resource. It now offers a mouth-watering collection of about a dozen videos, and it plans to archive the out-of-print magazine Continuum. This venture is being administered by Joan Shenton who wrote the excellent book, “Positively False”, and who made a number of important documentaries. The website,, includes a request for donations, and I urge anyone who can do so, to contribute. If you harbor any doubts as to whether “historical” material has any lasting value, watch the video with material from the 1993 Alternative AIDS Conference, as I just did; you can watch for free and then donate if you wish.


“Aims of The Immunity Resource Foundation

The Immunity Resource Foundation (IRF) will provide a digitised information base offering:

—an educational facility and internet database of 120,000 documents comprising the 20 years of changing scientific evidence surrounding HIV/AIDS and other health, nutrition and medical issues. A unique and extensive record of challenges to current thinking in medical and public health fields, and the debates surrounding them.

from the frontiers of present research on medical and public health issues and their financial and political contexts.

—search and viewing facilities of Meditel’s unparalleled library of 200 hours of television documentaries, original footage and video material.

—a broadband video channel transmitting Meditel’s television archive with issue updates.

—the complete library of Continuum magazine editions which include articles of major scientific and academic interest, mostly rejected by mainstream journals. Also contains collected publications, proofing copies and editorial correspondence.

—educational materials including interactive CD/DVD ROM, seminars, lectures and legal advice on health and medical issues.


Through twenty years of investigative television programmes, Meditel Productions in London has collected a unique archive—the Meditel Archive—of the science and law surrounding AIDS and injury from prescribed drugs. The resource of 120,000 of Meditel’s research documents plus the 8 year archive of specialist magazine Continuum, plus 20 Meditel videos, and video footage, demonstrates in incomparable detail, debates that have taken place behind the closed doors of a scientific community. The Meditel and Continuum archives are on permanent loan to IRF.



IRF has a 5 year plan with a detailed four-phase budget. Year 1 (Phase l & ll):
Fundraising/archive cataloguing/legal consultancy Year 2 (Phase lll):
Equipment – PC’s/scanners/software/archiving/digitising team/website/DVD Years 3-5 (Phase lV):
Website & DVD update/seminars/IRF broadband channel transmission of Meditel’s television archive.


Joan Shenton – Administrator, Immunity Resource Foundation, 17 Ivy Lodge, 122 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3QS Tel: +44 (0)20 7727 6301; Fax: +44(0)20 7792 5059

Posted in Funds for HIV/AIDS, HIV does not cause AIDS | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

%d bloggers like this: