Mod+ 273. DR. HENRY BAUER, DOGMATIC SCIENCE WRONG ABOUT HIV-AIDS CONNECTION

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIVCausesAIDS/Pages/HIVcausesAIDS.aspx
I have include a rough outline below but the full details are at the link...

This is the view from the HIV causes AIDS group. Meanwhile, we have the evidence from the opposition. Like you said, it is almost impossible for people to assess the truth. The two sides aren't talking to one another, but past one another. The issue isn't so much whether HIV causes AIDS, but whether dissension is tolerated. Peter Duesberg may be right or wrong, but there's no doubting what happened to him as a result of his contrarianism.

Luc Montagnier is a bit of a queer fish: he got his Nobel for discovery of HIV (which he initially labelled LAV) and it was Gallo who implicated it in AIDS. But even Montagnier's contribution wasn't enough for him to evade censure for his work on the structure of water, broadly supportive of homeopathy, where the discussion is as closed as it is in the HIV-AIDS case.

Like I said, even a Nobel doesn't exclude one from the unfavourable attentions of the inquisition.
 
Henry Bauer was mainly talking about science in general, but if you want to understand his HIV != AIDS argument, look here:

http://thecaseagainsthiv.net/

Note that just about every point comes with a reference!

As I've said, I really don't have the time or the inclination to research Henry Bauer's views further, based on what I heard on the podcast.

Again, if anyone finds his arguments convincing and cares to explain why - rather than just posting links - it might be interesting.
 
Notice the extremely low rates of transmission from unprotected (herosexual) sex of between 1-in-10,000 and 1-in-100,000.

From the page you linked to [my emphasis]:
"Defense lawyers argued the risk of infection by an HIV-positive man during sexual intercourse with a woman ranged from a 1-in-10,000 to 1-in-100,000 chance per sexual encounter, which they contend is so low that it doesn’t meet the legal standard for assault. Prosecutors countered that the exposure risk was closer to 1 in 500."
 
As I've said, I really don't have the time or the inclination to research Henry Bauer's views further, based on what I heard on the podcast.

Again, if anyone finds his arguments convincing and cares to explain why - rather than just posting links - it might be interesting.
Well I have already given quite a bit of explanation, as has Jim_Smith, and the full theory is explained (in a fairly accessible way) in the link I gave you. If you don't want to read it, why go on discussing it?

Regarding the frequency of transmission of HIV by sex, there is clearly a lot of uncertainty in the figures, but even at 1 in 500 it means that you could be in a sexually active relationship (using no protection) with someone HIV positive for several years without yourself becoming HIV positive! I'll bet you would have expected a much lower figure!

David
 
You have the time to come and read/comment on posts here. One would think you'd have the time to look at counter-evidence, especially about such an important issue. This is serious stuff: if the video is correct, those promulgating the HIV-AIDS link and the use of AZT are in one way or another responsible for many thousands of deaths and much human suffering. In addition, all the money ploughed into AIDS might have been much more profitably applied to improving water supplies in Africa.


A non-sequitur. Even if David can't evaluate the strength of their arguments--about which I'm doubtful--what the heck has that got to do with whether those who should definitely be able to evaluate them should or shouldn't discuss them at conferences? The point Bauer is making is that questioning the HIV-AIDS link has become heresy regardless of its merits: which illustrates the dogmatism of medical science.

funny... ironic... true.

moreover, I think a lot of posters seem to be missing the point. Bauer is saying that science's dissenting opinions are not being heard... and that dissenters are crushed by a system that ruled by myopic dogmatism.

so, whether one believes HIV!=AIDS, we oughta be concerned about the lack of open debate.

Henry Bauer was mainly talking about science in general, but if you want to understand his HIV != AIDS argument, look here:

http://thecaseagainsthiv.net/

Note that just about every point comes with a reference!

David

Bauer has two blogs, one about HIV-AIDS skepticism and another about the miserable state of contemporary science and medicine in general. The latter one is especially recommended: even if he is wrong about HIV-AIDS connection (and I suspect that he is right), it still won't shatter his superb contributions to the Science and Technology Studies (STS) in general. Without any exaggeration, he is one of the most erudite and intelligent scholars of science ever.
 
Well I have already given quite a bit of explanation, as has Jim_Smith, and the full theory is explained (in a fairly accessible way) in the link I gave you. If you don't want to read it, why go on discussing it?

I'm simply asking whether - if anyone believes these claims - they can explain why.
 
Henry Bauer is also celebrating this legal ruling:

http://www.omsj.org/corruption/gutwin2015/2

Notice the extremely low rates of transmission from unprotected (herosexual) sex of between 1-in-10,000 and 1-in-100,000.

The unreliable nature of the HIV test also featured in this case


I guess this is the closest thing we have to Henry Bauer's 'science court' concept, and it seems to have gone his way!

David

Hopefully the mods will forgive my intrusion into this thread on this legal issue.

The full decision is here: http://www.omsj.org/cases/2010/Gutierrez/2015/ruling2015.pdf

The court did not deliberate on any issue related to this thread and did not need to in order to make their ruling.

Even if HIV, if contracted, would lead to death the court did not need to look into the issue in any kind of detail. None of the parties raised it but even if they had, the court would not have had to rule on it to decide the case.

The decision focused on the definition of "likely" as it applied to the particular criminal provision the accused was charged under. The reason is because even accepting that HIV transmission leads to death, it would only be a crime in this case if having the vaginal intercourse would be likely to lead to such a transmission.

The court found that even the highest chance of contracting the disease on through vaginal intercourse presented to the court (the government's proposed 1/500 chance) did not constitute a rate that was "likely" enough to trigger the criminal consequences.

Unless I'm missing something the decision is value neutral vis-a-vis Dr. Bauer.
 
Hopefully the mods will forgive my intrusion into this thread on this legal issue.

The full decision is here: http://www.omsj.org/cases/2010/Gutierrez/2015/ruling2015.pdf

The court did not deliberate on any issue related to this thread and did not need to in order to make their ruling.

Even if HIV, if contracted, would lead to death the court did not need to look into the issue in any kind of detail. None of the parties raised it but even if they had, the court would not have had to rule on it to decide the case.

The decision focused on the definition of "likely" as it applied to the particular criminal provision the accused was charged under. The reason is because even accepting that HIV transmission leads to death, it would only be a crime in this case if having the vaginal intercourse would be likely to lead to such a transmission.

The court found that even the highest chance of contracting the disease on through vaginal intercourse presented to the court (the government's proposed 1/500 chance) did not constitute a rate that was "likely" enough to trigger the criminal consequences.

Unless I'm missing something the decision is value neutral vis-a-vis Dr. Bauer.

I think the point is that without the intervention of the OMSJ, it would have been assumed that transmission of HIV was much more likely than even 1 in 500. I mean, this was an appeal court, so presumably the original judge had already made that assumption.

David
 
I think the point is that without the intervention of the OMSJ, it would have been assumed that transmission of HIV was much more likely than even 1 in 500. I mean, this was an appeal court, so presumably the original judge had already made that assumption.

No - if you follow the link, you'll see that in the testimony at the original trial 1 in 500 was the largest figure mentioned.
 
Bauer has two blogs, one about HIV-AIDS skepticism and another about the miserable state of contemporary science and medicine in general. The latter one is especially recommended: even if he is wrong about HIV-AIDS connection (and I suspect that he is right), it still won't shatter his superb contributions to the Science and Technology Studies (STS) in general. Without any exaggeration, he is one of the most erudite and intelligent scholars of science ever.

Thanks for the heads up, Vortex.
 
I think the point is that without the intervention of the OMSJ, it would have been assumed that transmission of HIV was much more likely than even 1 in 500. I mean, this was an appeal court, so presumably the original judge had already made that assumption.

David

While I'm not familiar with the rules of this particular court jurisdiction, new evidence (fact, expert, or otherwise) are not generally permitted at the appeal level. Whatever evidence or expert opinion that was being considered on appeal would have had to have been presented to the lower court.
 
I'm simply asking whether - if anyone believes these claims - they can explain why.

I tried to explain my doubt. Why do you believe that HIV causes AIDS? Why do you believe HIV even exists?

What happened in the 70's, the hypothesis that reverse transcriptase was a direct marker for retro viruses has been proven false. HIV has never been isolated to the gold standard in virology apparently. You would think this would be a simple fact to determine.

If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."

Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."

Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sanger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemistry, Munchen.

That is...

1. Culture of infected tissue.
2. Purification. (Density gradient centrifuge)
3. Electron micrographs of particular density and dimension. With no other morphologies present!
4. Identification of reverse transcriptase.
5. Proof of uniqueness of viral proteins and RNA.
6. Proof that the qualities are from the infected culture and not induced in control cultures.
7. Proof of transmission. Infecting healthy culture and producing particles matching in above steps.
 
Fact is the line of reasoning for the past 30 years or so is a complete failure. However it is still a multi billion dollar cash cow. A failure to treat but big succes for the bottom line!
It is well past due, we need to look for different angles instead of what is apparently the result of science and the pharma industry run amok. What Gallo did was a disgrace to the standards that were already set for virology.
 
I tried to explain my doubt. Why do you believe that HIV causes AIDS? Why do you believe HIV even exists?

What happened in the 70's, the hypothesis that reverse transcriptase was a direct marker for retro viruses has been proven false. HIV has never been isolated to the gold standard in virology apparently. You would think this would be a simple fact to determine.



That is...

1. Culture of infected tissue.
2. Purification. (Density gradient centrifuge)
3. Electron micrographs of particular density and dimension. With no other morphologies present!
4. Identification of reverse transcriptase.
5. Proof of uniqueness of viral proteins and RNA.
6. Proof that the qualities are from the infected culture and not induced in control cultures.
7. Proof of transmission. Infecting healthy culture and producing particles matching in above steps.

Thanks, but the problem is that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that HIV does exist and has been isolated.

As for Dr Stefan Lanka, before taking his thoughts about HIV/AIDS too seriously, it may be worth reflecting that he also denied the existence of the measles virus. He offered a reward of 100,000 Euros to anyone who could prove the measles virus existed, and in March he was ordered by a German court to pay the reward:
http://www.ibtimes.com/who-stefan-lanka-court-orders-german-measles-denier-pay-100000-euros-1846078
 
I don't see why people are rushing to defend him. It's almost as if any person who goes against the mainstream, no matter what their views are, or, if the opinions are dangerous, is some kind of pioneer, rather than a krank. Because attitudes like his have done huge to damage, for example, South Africa. Thanks to Thabo Mbeki, 100s of thousands of people have HIV/AIDS, and he was explicit in his denial that there was a link. Secondly, I judging by Bauer's views on homosexuality, and race, you wonder whether there is a certain element biasing him to his view;

"I regard homosexuality as an aberration or illness, not as an ‘equally valid life-style’ or whatever the current euphemism is." He is also reportedly to have said in his book that he free speech and other civil rights of homosexuals should be withdrawn to prevent what Bauer views as the negative effects of homosexuality from spreading (whether wikipedia is accurate here I don't know - but if it is, it is discouraging)

or "feminoid sexists calling men sexist" and "racist black fanatics calling others racist."


This doesn't paint a great picture of the man I have to say.
 
Thanks, but the problem is that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that HIV does exist and has been isolated.

Has it?

As for Dr Stefan Lanka, before taking his thoughts about HIV/AIDS too seriously, it may be worth reflecting that he also denied the existence of the measles virus. He offered a reward of 100,000 Euros to anyone who could prove the measles virus existed, and in March he was ordered by a German court to pay the reward:
http://www.ibtimes.com/who-stefan-lanka-court-orders-german-measles-denier-pay-100000-euros-1846078

That does not change his valid points.
Which are consistant with other virologists and experts in electron micography.
 
Back
Top