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

bishop said:
No, he is suggesting that it is supernatural, which makes me question him as an authority on anything. Here are some of his direct quotes.
Click to expand...

Those 3 quotes are given out of context and it's difficult to judge whether or not he's being ironic. I can imagine that's what he's being: but I'm open to persuasion if you can supply full context.
 
David Bailey said:
I don't know enough to begin to defend or attack his theory, but there is no point in just inventing a straw man.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be pertinent to ask whether anyone here feels they know enough to defend his theory (whatever his theory is - I listened to quite a bit of the podcast, which seemed to cover his beliefs on AIDS, and it didn't include a theory, only some questions about a couple of epidemiological statistics, which might have any number of reasonable answers).
 
Chris said:
Perhaps it would be pertinent to ask whether anyone here feels they know enough to defend his theory (whatever his theory is - I listened to quite a bit of the podcast, which seemed to cover his beliefs on AIDS, and it didn't include a theory, only some questions about a couple of epidemiological statistics, which might have any number of reasonable answers).
Click to expand...


I got the impression this was a very well read and knowledgeable man, but your right, I didn't hear any specific argument, some people are not that good at clearly stating their case, but I got the idea, that his findings of AIDS, didn't match the mainstream, and that fabricated and statistical data were propped up in their place. Or maybe he is arguing against the conclusions of the data, and exposing that. He seems like a very wise man, and I bet his knowledge is really extensive. I just found the topic was a bit far from my normal taste of required interest, but I did find it interesting, and enjoyed the podcast. Especially the part where, those with the best vested interests, are the ones pulling the purse strings and guiding the hand of what is scientific and what is not.

It's fascinating that Alex has built up a collection of these academics who are willing to speak out against the establishment. There really are people who have no chance to have a voice in the public domain, who should have a chance to speak out, And I think that was also one of the arguments put forward, that science should really be open to the public domain for examination, Although I am not sure how that isn't.
 
Here is an argument he gave on the interview that HIV does not cause AIDS: significant numbers of women tested HIV positive when AIDS was found mostly in gay men.

http://www.skeptiko.com/273-henry-bauer-science-wrong-about-aids/
It said that when the Army first started to test new recruits for HIV, and that was in the mid-1980s, they found that teenage women from all over the country in the United States were HIV-positive as often as teenage boys. Now that couldn’t be true because the official position was that HIV came to the United States around the late 1970s, and it came in only amongst groups of gay men in a few large cities: Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York. A sexually transmitted disease, largely transmitted among gay men, could not possibly have spread all over the United States in half a dozen years, in such a way that you would find teenage women in Montana being HIV-positive as often as teenage boys there. So I thought that statement couldn’t be correct. I looked up the original reference. That’s what the primary source said. You never can accept a single source in science so I looked at other data about HIV testing in the 1980s.
​

Regarding http://thecaseagainsthiv.net/ ... This is where Ioannidis' research makes me queasy. What is the point of going through all those referenced research reports when most published research findings are false?
http://www.economist.com/news/scien...w-institute-has-you-its-sights-metaphysicians

What is the point of trying to use the scientific literature to make any type of decision for example related to health or medicine? That is the crux of the problem with science - it is no longer a credible source of information - which is the exact opposite of what science should be - a way of obtaining correct information.



​
 
The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/understanding/howhivcausesaids/pages/hivcausesaids.aspx

Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory. In all three cases, HIV was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced and shown to be the infecting strain of virus. In another tragic incident, transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both the dentist and the patients. The dentist and three of the patients developed AIDS and died, and at least one of the other patients has developed AIDS. Five of the patients had no HIV risk factors other than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613; O'Brien, 1997; Ciesielski et al. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:886).
​

The link has more than just this ... but my point is: how is anyone supposed to make sense of conflicting claims? If you can't trust published science or government what basis is there for forming an opinion?
 
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/understanding/howhivcausesaids/pages/hivcausesaids.aspx

The development of AIDS following known HIV seroconversion also has been repeatedly observed in pediatric and adult blood transfusion cases, in mother-to-child transmission, and in studies of hemophilia, injection-drug use and sexual transmission in which seroconversion can be documented using serial blood samples (CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; AIDS Knowledge Base, 1999)

​
http://thecaseagainsthiv.net/
Mother-to-child transmission has not been shown to occur.
​
I don't know who is right but I believe science is broken.
​
 
I did some research several years ago, I am fuzzy on the details. There are complex scientific issues at the fore front. These are not easily understood.

Firstly there seems to be a break in procedure dealing with viruses by Gallo in the 80's. This was a consequence of the development from the 70's relying on genetic markers over electron microscopy. This is connected with the push to locate viruses with cancer/ leukemia.
So markers were replaced because of frustrated attempts for EM of actual viral particles.
It gets more confusing because there is a EM of supposed HIV viral particle from way back, however it is a cord blood lymphocyte, cells used in the admixture which should by all accounts be known to carry endongenous retroviruses.

Montagnier himself said " We did not purify..."

So no TEM of any HIV particles. What is found in the blood of "AIDS" patients, what is being recognized by PCR is a bunch of nucleotide sequences that are similar to retrovirus sequences. These sequences are taken as actual HIV particles.

Interesting to note the inventer of PCR could not find the original citation for HIV causes AIDS.
 
Last edited:
bishop said:
He's not being ironic at all, IMO. Unless his irony is laser precise to the point of being impossible to distinguish from earnestness.
http://www.webcitation.org/6JzbQkigU
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced. The third quote in full context is here:

As time went by, HIV — in all its strains and varieties — learned how to cause more and more different illnesses — though none of them are new. At first HIV only knew how to cause Kaposi’s sarcoma, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, and thrush. But soon it learned how to cause wasting, then dementia, and soon cervical cancer. By now it is producing cardiovascular disease and kidney and liver failure. One might say, therefore, that HIV is a quite novel type of virus, a new sort that one might call a cuckoo type of virus, doing its damage by mimicking other causes just as cuckoos lay their eggs in foreign nests.
And so on. For fuller coverage of the uniqueness of HIV, please browse the posts under the category “HIV absurdities”.

But now HIV has outdone even itself: It has infected the baby of HIV-negative parents without the baby being exposed to any of the other known routes of HIV transmission: “Mystery shrouds detection of HIV in 18-month-old”
It is difficult not to see in this a number of clues, signs, omens, that something supernatural is at work. “Mystery” is often used in connection with religious matters; and “shrouds” reminds one immediately of the Shroud of Turin.

Something or someone somewhere is somehow sending us a message.
​
All you posted was:

It is difficult not to see in this a number of clues, signs, omens, that something supernatural is at work......Something or someone somewhere is somehow sending us a message​

In context, the irony is obvious. Stop posting stuff out of context to create the opposite impression from what the author meant to convey. People like you are part of the problem with the present situation in science.
 
Ever notice how disease is marketed? Aids is a textbook example. First you had to be a gay man or a needle user. A vaccine was promised in two years. Then hetro... the spike in "AIDS" victims dramatically increased when the inclusion of many other conditions were gathered under the AIDS umbrella because you could include woman and infants. Who would have thought? Expand the market. Even now, diseases we once considered relatively benign, if you are old enough, are now lethal killers!
 
Michael Larkin said:
I'm not convinced. The third quote in full context is here:

As time went by, HIV — in all its strains and varieties — learned how to cause more and more different illnesses — though none of them are new. At first HIV only knew how to cause Kaposi’s sarcoma, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, and thrush. But soon it learned how to cause wasting, then dementia, and soon cervical cancer. By now it is producing cardiovascular disease and kidney and liver failure. One might say, therefore, that HIV is a quite novel type of virus, a new sort that one might call a cuckoo type of virus, doing its damage by mimicking other causes just as cuckoos lay their eggs in foreign nests.
And so on. For fuller coverage of the uniqueness of HIV, please browse the posts under the category “HIV absurdities”.

But now HIV has outdone even itself: It has infected the baby of HIV-negative parents without the baby being exposed to any of the other known routes of HIV transmission: “Mystery shrouds detection of HIV in 18-month-old”
It is difficult not to see in this a number of clues, signs, omens, that something supernatural is at work. “Mystery” is often used in connection with religious matters; and “shrouds” reminds one immediately of the Shroud of Turin.

Something or someone somewhere is somehow sending us a message.
​
All you posted was:

It is difficult not to see in this a number of clues, signs, omens, that something supernatural is at work......Something or someone somewhere is somehow sending us a message​

In context, the irony is obvious. Stop posting stuff out of context to create the opposite impression from what the author meant to convey. People like you are part of the problem with the present situation in science.
Click to expand...

Michael, I honestly don't know how the quote is obviously meant to be ironic. He said right at the top of the post that it could be considered supernatural. Also, do you disagree that he's implying that HIV "chooses" black people? Plus, the very last line about "something or someone is sending a message" is without any irony whatsoever. What about the last line is ironic, exactly?
 
bishop said:
Michael, I honestly don't know how the quote is obviously meant to be ironic. He said right at the top of the post that it could be considered supernatural. Also, do you disagree that he's implying that HIV "chooses" black people?
Click to expand...

I'm not responsible for a troll's lack of grasp of the English language. Go buy a book on comprehension; meanwhile, you're going on my ignore list.
 
Jim_Smith said:
It is so bad that there is no way to tell if Dr. Bauer is right or wrong.
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect there's something to his objections, but in the final analysis, you're right. It's an abysmal state of affairs arising out of the lack of obligation for orthodoxists to honestly defend their position out in the open.
 
Last edited:
bishop said:
No, he is suggesting that it is supernatural, which makes me question him as an authority on anything. Here are some of his direct quotes.
Click to expand...

Wild misquoting out of context - this can be done with anyone to misinterpret and misrepresent their position.

Bauer does NOT think AIDS (or HIV) is supernatural. Let me give you a genuine quote:


9.1If HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, what does cause AIDS?

9.1.1AIDS-1 (the original early-1980s AIDS) resulted from the “fast-lane” lifestyle of drug abuse, extreme promiscuity, and generally unhealthy behavior. The first AIDS victims were in their mid-to-late 30s, consistent with this explanation and inconsistent with a sexually transmitted disease, which affects adolescents and young adults significantly more than others.

9.1.2AIDS-2 (“HIV disease”, “HIV/AIDS”, non-African AIDS) is the mis-interpretation of “HIV” tests whereby anyone who tests “HIV-positive” is presumed to “have HIV/AIDS” — even as authoritative mainstream sources and data demonstrate that innumerable conditions, some but not all of them unhealthy, conduce to testing “HIV-positive”, and even as no “HIV” test has been officially approved for actually identifying active infection.

9.1.3African AIDS is the mis-interpretation of manifest symptoms that are entirely non-specific and moreover are associated with many diseases long endemic in Africa: prolonged fever, cough, diarrhea, bodily wasting (section 2.3.1).
Click to expand...

Please read his "Case against HIV" and his two blogs attentively before condemning him (general reading of other HIV skepticism sources are also highly recommended).
 
Last edited:
bishop said:
He's not being ironic at all, IMO. Unless his irony is laser precise to the point of being impossible to distinguish from earnestness.
http://www.webcitation.org/6JzbQkigU
Click to expand...
Michael Larkin said:
I'm not convinced. The third quote in full context is here:

As time went by, HIV — in all its strains and varieties — learned how to cause more and more different illnesses — though none of them are new. At first HIV only knew how to cause Kaposi’s sarcoma, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, and thrush. But soon it learned how to cause wasting, then dementia, and soon cervical cancer. By now it is producing cardiovascular disease and kidney and liver failure. One might say, therefore, that HIV is a quite novel type of virus, a new sort that one might call a cuckoo type of virus, doing its damage by mimicking other causes just as cuckoos lay their eggs in foreign nests.
And so on. For fuller coverage of the uniqueness of HIV, please browse the posts under the category “HIV absurdities”.

But now HIV has outdone even itself: It has infected the baby of HIV-negative parents without the baby being exposed to any of the other known routes of HIV transmission: “Mystery shrouds detection of HIV in 18-month-old”
It is difficult not to see in this a number of clues, signs, omens, that something supernatural is at work. “Mystery” is often used in connection with religious matters; and “shrouds” reminds one immediately of the Shroud of Turin.

Something or someone somewhere is somehow sending us a message.
​
All you posted was:

It is difficult not to see in this a number of clues, signs, omens, that something supernatural is at work......Something or someone somewhere is somehow sending us a message​

In context, the irony is obvious. Stop posting stuff out of context to create the opposite impression from what the author meant to convey. People like you are part of the problem with the present situation in science.
Click to expand...

From "Case agaist HIV":


4.7Self-contradictions and absurdities of HIV/AIDS theory and practice.

4.7.1That pregnancy (section 3.2.2.5, 3.3.17, 6.1.1.4) is a risk factor for acquiring this sexually transmitted disease.

4.7.2HIV/AIDS activists insist that no stigma should be attached to those who become “HIV-positive” even as HIV/AIDS theory asserts that “HIV” is contracted through behavior that is appropriately frowned upon: careless promiscuity or drug abuse and injecting drugs with dirty needles.

4.7.3HIV/AIDS activists urge that drug abusers be given new needles so that they can “safely” inject heroin and other “recreational” drugs. In every circumstance except HIV/AIDS, use of illegal injected drugs is regarded as criminal behavior 555,556, and it is recognized that drug addicts harm their families as well as themselves. Moreover, clean needles are associated with greater incidence of “HIV-positive” (section 3.3.8), owing to the ill-health brought about by the drugs.

4.7.4“HIV” is supposed to spread by different mechanisms in different parts of the world 557,558,559.

4.7.5Those who are most susceptible to becoming “HIV-positive” nevertheless live longer 560.

4.7.6Poverty is supposed to conduce to “HIV-positive” by increasing risk factors, but in Africa it is wealth that conduces to being “HIV-positive” 561,page 89 in 875.

4.7.7An “HIV-positive” man who did not infect his wife despite intercourse with her must have nevertheless infected his child by biting her finger 562.

4.7.8Babies infected by dirty needles are supposed to have transmitted “HIV” to their mothers by biting their nipples 563.

4.7.9Breast-feeding by “HIV-positive” mothers is said to risk transmitting HIV to the babies, yet exclusive breast-feeding brings the lowest risk that babies will become “HIV-positive” 334 (section 3.3.4.3).

4.7.10Tuberculosis (TB) patients test positive as often as do gay men and drug addicts Fig. 22 p. 83 in 5,564 so, irrationally, TB is sometimes said to be an AIDS disease rather than just TB.

4.7.11Cervical cancer was said to be an “AIDS disease”, i.e. caused by “HIV”, in 1993 489. Yet nowadays it is said to be caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), again on the basis of a mere correlation.

4.7.12Increased obesity is attributed to desire to show that one is not “HIV-positive” 565.

4.7.13When malnourished Africans test “HIV-positive”, their ill-health is attributed to “HIV” rather than lack of food 110,566.

4.7.14“Washing the penis minutes after sex increased the risk of acquiring H.I.V. in uncircumcised men. The sooner the washing, the greater the risk of becoming infected” 567.

4.7.15When ARVs appeared to work against “HIV” but patients nevertheless became more ill, this was ascribed to the newly invented “immune restoration syndrome”: recovery or re-activation of the immune system supposedly caused inflammation and illness 568,312.

4.7.16Official numbers just don’t compute 569. Estimates have perhaps one in four 570of “HIV-positive” Americans unaware of their status — up to 75% of gay men 571, even 93% of young gay black men 572 (and about a third of “HIV-positive” people in Britain 573,574). Now, about 1 million Americans have been “HIV-positive” throughout 3 decades pp. 1-2 in 5. By 2 decades ago, therefore, assuming the 10-year “latent period” (which doesn’t actually exist 482,483), at least 250,000 “HIV-positive” people should have been coming down with AIDS and dying within a year or two, being replaced by the ~55,000 new annual infections 575 to somehow keep the total number of infected at about 1 million. But reported HIV/AIDS deaths rose to a peak of 42,000 in 1994 and then declined steadily to <16,000 576.

4.7.17 Measles virus slows progression of HIV infection 577,578,579,580,581.

4.7.18 “HIV” tests are sometimes said to be 100% sensitive and 100% specific 582.

4.7.19 Sleeplessness and not taking ARVs are correlated [big surprise] 583.
Click to expand...
 
Vortex said:
From "Case agaist HIV":
Click to expand...

Obviously these would have to be looked at in detail to see what sense they made. For example, the first one, about pregnancy, apparently means not that pregnancy is a risk factor for acquiring the disease, but that pregnancy correlates with the likelihood of a false-positive test for the virus. What could that possibly tell us about whether the virus causes the disease?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top