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

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?
Sure. That, more or less, is what I thought about several things he said. But then after watching the video Michael posted, I'm forced to seriously question the orthodoxy.

Have you seen it?
 
Sure. That, more or less, is what I thought about several things he said. But then after watching the video Michael posted, I'm forced to seriously question the orthodoxy.

Have you seen it?

Sorry - I just don't have the time to sit through a video of an hour and a half.
 
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).
The point is that the alternative views that Bauer and other prominent scientists absolutely need to be argued out at conferences - not dismissed with talk of "Deniers". Here is a quote from another 'AIDS denier' and Nobel Prize winner, Kary Mullis:
In 1988 I was working as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, CA, setting up analytic routines for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). I knew a lot about setting up analytic routines for anything with nucleic acids in it because I invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction. That's why they hired me.

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), on the other hand, was something I did not know a lot about. Thus, when I found myself writing a report on our progress and goals for the project, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, I recognized that I did not know the scientific reference to support a statement I had just written: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

So I turned to the virologist at the next desk, a reliable and competent fellow, and asked him for the reference. He said I didn't need one. I disagreed. While it's true that certain scientific discoveries or techniques are so well established that their sources are no longer referenced in the contemporary literature, that didn't seem to be the case with the HIV/AIDS connection. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten. But as I would soon learn, the name of that individual - who would surely be Nobel material - was on the tip of no one's tongue.

Of course, this simple reference had to be out there somewhere. Otherwise, tens of thousands of public servants and esteemed scientists of many callings, trying to solve the tragic deaths of a large number of homosexual and/or intravenous (IV) drug-using men between the ages of twenty-five and forty, would not have allowed their research to settle into one narrow channel of investigation. Everyone wouldn't fish in the same pond unless it was well established that all the other ponds were empty. There had to be a published paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. There just had to be.

I did computer searches, but came up with nothing. Of course, you can miss something important in computer searches by not putting in just the right key words. To be certain about a scientific issue, it's best to ask other scientists directly. That's one thing that scientific conferences in faraway places with nice beaches are for.

I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could cite the reference. I didn't like the ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth century Black Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense.

Finally, I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and AIDS research, DL Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer. So I asked him.

With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control? "

I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?"

"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.

"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?" the good doctor offered.

"I read that too, DL Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS.

This time, DL Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet an acquaintance across the room.

Cut to the scene inside my car just a few years ago. I was driving from Mendocino to San Diego. Like everyone else by now, I knew a lot more about AIDS than I wanted to. But I still didn't know who had determined that it was caused by HIV. Getting sleepy as I came over the San Bernardino Mountains, I switched on the radio and tuned in a guy who was talking about AIDS. His name was Peter Duesberg, and he was a prominent virologist at Berkeley. I'd heard of him, but had never read his papers or heard him speak. But I listened, now wide awake, while he explained exactly why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren't any. No one had ever proved that HIV causes AIDS. When I got home, I invited Duesberg down to San Diego to present his ideas to a meeting of the American Association for Chemistry. Mostly skeptical at first, the audience stayed for the lecture, and then an hour of questions, and then stayed talking to each other until requested to clear the room. Everyone left with more questions than they had brought.

I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows necessarily what causes AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But we're both certain about what doesn't cause AIDS.

We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.

We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint other than the fact that they have the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take this drug for any reason.

We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.

I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time.

David
 
The point is that the alternative views that Bauer and other prominent scientists absolutely need to be argued out at conferences - not dismissed with talk of "Deniers".

But if you can't evaluate the strength of their arguments, what can be your basis for saying they should be discussed at conferences?
 
Sorry - I just don't have the time to sit through a video of an hour and a half.

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.
But if you can't evaluate the strength of their arguments, what can be your basis for saying they should be discussed at conferences?

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.
 
Michael

That's just a bit too easy, isn't it? You do see that someone on the other side could just as easily say to you that you shouldn't be commenting unless you've read/watched/listed to XYZ book/video/podcast pushing the opposite point of view?

However, as this thread is Mod+ I presumably shouldn't be criticising Bauer at all, so I'll stop.
 
But if you can't evaluate the strength of their arguments, what can be your basis for saying they should be discussed at conferences?
Did you listen to the podcast? Did you get the point that at least two senior scientists were just cold shouldered when they began to question if HIV caused AIDS. Did you read the statement by Kary Mullis that I posted - he is the guy that got the Nobel Prize for the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR).

David
 
Michael

That's just a bit too easy, isn't it? You do see that someone on the other side could just as easily say to you that you shouldn't be commenting unless you've read/watched/listed to XYZ book/video/podcast pushing the opposite point of view?

However, as this thread is Mod+ I presumably shouldn't be criticising Bauer at all, so I'll stop.
Comment as much as you like - but wouldn't it help to first understand what Bauer is saying?

David
 
Last edited:
Comment as much as you like - but wouldn't it help to understand what Bauer is saying?

Apparently you missed my comment above, where I said that I'm not going to criticise Bauer further here because the thread is Mod+.

If anyone who is convinced by Bauer's arguments would like to explain why on another thread that isn't Mod+ I'd be (mildly) interested.
 
Apparently you missed my comment above, where I said that I'm not going to criticise Bauer further here because the thread is Mod+.

If anyone who is convinced by Bauer's arguments would like to explain why on another thread that isn't Mod+ I'd be (mildly) interested.
Mod+ isn't meant to suppress sensible discussion. I remember a discussion about Dianne Powell's video in which most of us - myself included - were highly sceptical and critical.

David
 
Mod+ isn't meant to suppress sensible discussion. I remember a discussion about Dianne Powell's video in which most of us - myself included - were highly sceptical and critical.

OK, then if anyone finds Bauer's arguments convincing and wants to explain here. I've already told you I listened to quite a bit of the podcast and didn't hear anything that convinced me, or really anything that qualified as an argument.
 
I think I am starting to agree with Alex - that modern science is really running off the rails - it just lives on the glories of the past.
interesting point... we do tend to glorify past accomplishments.

Only areas that are pinned down by the need to produce a working product can be trusted!
good point. I was watching a clip with one of the twitter founders and was inspired by the vitality/creativity... seemed so different than the "science" folks I encounter.
 
It is so bad that there is no way to tell if Dr. Bauer is right or wrong.
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.
 
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...


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services • National Institutes of Health
...
The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS
...
HIV fulfills Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS.
...
AIDS and HIV infection are invariably linked in time, place and population group.
...
Many studies agree that only a single factor, HIV, predicts whether a person will develop AIDS.
In cohort studies, severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining illnesses occur almost exclusively in individuals who are HIV-infected.
...
Before the appearance of HIV, AIDS-related diseases such as PCP, KS and MAC were rare in developed countries; today, they are common in HIV-infected individuals.
...
In developing countries, patterns of both rare and endemic diseases have changed dramatically as HIV has spread, with a far greater toll now being exacted among the young and middle-aged, including well-educated members of the middle class.
...
In studies conducted in both developing and developed countries, death rates are markedly higher among HIV-seropositive individuals than among HIV-seronegative individuals.
HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS.
...
Numerous studies of HIV-infected people have shown that high levels of infectious HIV, viral antigens, and HIV nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) in the body predict immune system deterioration and an increased risk for developing AIDS. Conversely, patients with low levels of virus have a much lower risk of developing AIDS.
...
The availability of potent combinations of drugs that specifically block HIV replication has dramatically improved the prognosis for HIV-infected individuals. Such an effect would not be seen if HIV did not have a central role in causing AIDS.
...
Among HIV-infected patients who receive anti-HIV therapy, those whose viral loads are driven to low levels are much less likely to develop AIDS or die than patients who do not respond to therapy. Such an effect would not be seen if HIV did not have a central role in causing AIDS.
...
Nearly everyone with AIDS has antibodies to HIV.
...
Numerous serosurveys show that AIDS is common in populations where many individuals have HIV antibodies. Conversely, in populations with low seroprevalence of HIV antibodies, AIDS is extremely rare.
...
The specific immunologic profile that typifies AIDS - a persistently low CD4+ T-cell count - is extraordinarily rare in the absence of HIV infection or other known cause of immunosuppression.
...
Newborn infants have no behavioral risk factors for AIDS, yet many children born to HIV-infected mothers have developed AIDS and died.
...
The HIV-infected twin develops AIDS while the uninfected twin does not.
...
Studies of transfusion-acquired AIDS cases have repeatedly led to the discovery of HIV in the patient as well as in the blood donor.
...
HIV is similar in genetic structure and morphology to other lentiviruses that often cause immunodeficiency in their animal hosts in addition to slow, progressive wasting disorders, neurodegeneration and death.
...
HIV causes the death and dysfunction of CD4+ T lymphocytes in vitro and in vivo.
...
MYTH: HIV antibody testing is unreliable.
...
MYTH: There is no AIDS in Africa. AIDS is nothing more than a new name for old diseases.
...
MYTH: HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS because researchers are unable to explain precisely how HIV destroys the immune system.
...
MYTH: AZT and other antiretroviral drugs, not HIV, cause AIDS.
...
MYTH: Behavioral factors such as recreational drug use and multiple sexual partners account for AIDS.
...
MYTH: AIDS among transfusion recipients is due to underlying diseases that necessitated the transfusion, rather than to HIV.
...
MYTH: High usage of clotting factor concentrate, not HIV, leads to CD4+ T-cell depletion and AIDS in hemophiliacs.
...
MYTH: The distribution of AIDS cases casts doubt on HIV as the cause. Viruses are not gender-specific, yet only a small proportion of AIDS cases are among women.
...
MYTH: HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS because the body develops a vigorous antibody response to the virus.
...
MYTH: Only a small number of CD4+ T cells are infected by HIV, not enough to damage the immune system.
...
MYTH: HIV is not the cause of AIDS because many individuals with HIV have not developed AIDS.
FACT: HIV disease has a prolonged and variable course. The median period of time between infection with HIV and the onset of clinically apparent disease is approximately 10 years in industrialized countries, according to prospective studies of homosexual men in which dates of seroconversion are known. Similar estimates of asymptomatic periods have been made for HIV-infected blood-transfusion recipients, injection-drug users and adult hemophiliacs (Alcabes et al. Epidemiol Rev 1993;15:303).

As with many diseases, a number of factors can influence the course of HIV disease. Factors such as age or genetic differences between individuals, the level of virulence of the individual strain of virus, as well as exogenous influences such as co-infection with other microbes may determine the rate and severity of HIV disease expression. Similarly, some people infected with hepatitis B, for example, show no symptoms or only jaundice and clear their infection, while others suffer disease ranging from chronic liver inflammation to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Co-factors probably also determine why some smokers develop lung cancer while others do not (Evans. Yale J Biol Med 1982;55:193; Levy. Microbiol Rev 1993;57:183; Fauci. Nature 1996;384:529).
...
MYTH: Some people have many symptoms associated with AIDS but do not have HIV infection.

FACT: Most AIDS symptoms result from the development of opportunistic infections and cancers associated with severe immunosuppression secondary to HIV.

However, immunosuppression has many other potential causes.
...
MYTH: The spectrum of AIDS-related infections seen in different populations proves that AIDS is actually many diseases not caused by HIV.

FACT: The diseases associated with AIDS, such as PCP and Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), are not caused by HIV but rather result from the immunosuppression caused by HIV disease. As the immune system of an HIV-infected individual weakens, he or she becomes susceptible to the particular viral, fungal and bacterial infections common in the community.
...
More information on this issue is available on the NIAID Focus On the HIV-AIDS Connection Web page.

 
I am struck by the fact that AZT is primarily a cancer drug and acts by preventing cell creation. I have no doubt that the drug itself could be responsible for deaths. I watched my husband react to chemotherapy...did much research on the subject...and have come to the conclusion that chemotherapy is simply the pharmaceutical's way to make even more money.

First, the chemo regimes are proscribed by the drug companies...any physician who tries to taylor the treatment to the person is basically not allowed to use the drugs any more and is often "let go" from whatever medical group he/she belongs to (this happened to a friend). Another
friend is a member of the Johnson and Johnson family and has worked in the medical field most of her life. She asked an acquaintance who had specialized in working in the chemotherapy field what he would do if he contracted cancer: his answer "I'd take morphine, and that's it".

My father and grandfather were MD's. When I was around 4, I contracted ringworm of the scalp. The treatment in vogue at the time was to xray my head.....all my hair fell out and at the age of 45 I had a very large basal cell carcinoma removed from my scalp. I still have a little bald spot. Guess I should feel lucky I didn't develop any brain tumors. My point being that some medical treatments can often damage rather than help, and that the "latest" new fad or treatment is not necessarily the best one, and the "established" treatments are not necessarily the best ones either. (Remember the xray machines in department stores that were used to fit shoes...you stuck your feet in them and could see your bones. We kids thought it was great fun).
 
To be fair, I think we should not swing 100% behind the HIV != AIDS camp because the issue is obviously extremely complicated, but clearly there are several factors about this that look suspicious:

1) The fact that well established scientists that doubted that HIV=AIDS were effectively muzzled and called denialists.

2) The long time scales involved - doesn't this remind one of the theory that saturated fat causes heart attacks - in both cases, it takes many years to gather the evidence, during which other demographic shifts may confuse the evidence.

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
In the original application for clemency submitted on behalf of David Gutierrez shortly after his trial, experts opined that David Gutierrez was, in all likelihood, HIV free and the diagnosis was in error.

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
 
I am struck by the fact that AZT is primarily a cancer drug and acts by preventing cell creation. I have no doubt that the drug itself could be responsible for deaths. I watched my husband react to chemotherapy...did much research on the subject...and have come to the conclusion that chemotherapy is simply the pharmaceutical's way to make even more money.

.

According to Henry Bauer, there is another confounding factor here. People who have AIDS often have a lot of uncontrolled fungal growth, and AIDS drugs are efficient fungicides (but are too toxic for that role). HB writes that many AIDS patients feel better very shortly after the treatment is initiated, and this could well be due to the fungicidal action.

Alex: Have you suggested that Henry Bauer might want to contribute to this thread?

David
 

Donna Sweet MD received $2.93 million from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) weeks after she testified against her own patient. BMS is the maker of the drug Sustiva, the highly addictive psychotropic ingredient contained in the drug Atripla, which generated $3.57 billion in sales for HIV drug giant Gilead Sciences in 2012. Dr. Sweet prescribed Atripla to her patient despite the fact that Gutierrez had no signs or symptoms of HIV infection. In his press release, attorney Kevin McDermott wrote:
 
OK, then if anyone finds Bauer's arguments convincing and wants to explain here. I've already told you I listened to quite a bit of the podcast and didn't hear anything that convinced me, or really anything that qualified as an argument.
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
 
Back
Top