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

Hey David, I'm not sure I understand where they answer the questions I was posing. Would you mind elaborating?
It seems to me that there is some uncertainty about whether HIV exists, and if it does exist, whether it causes AIDS. The basic concern here is that experts who doubted the official story were shut out of the debate.
That's a fine question, yes. Though I won't say it's necessarily surprising when someone gets called out for ideas that bump up against scientific consensus. Either way dissent doesn't say anything about whether the claims are true or not in and of itself. As always the problem is that the layperson cannot be expected to become a scientist to understand who is correct, and for every expert claiming "A" we can present another expert that's claiming "not A".
In one sense that is true, but don't you suspect the guy who tries not to answer questions, by calling the other guy a 'denialist'?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. What does it even mean to be found HIV positive if it doesn't exist? What exactly is it that does not exist?
It seems that the HIV tests measures something that isn't very specific - a collection of antibodies that can be due to a whole variety of conditions. According to Bauer, you are more likely to fail an HIV test if you have flu or are pregnant!
That's what I meant by my question about whether or not HIV, as it is understood by scientific consensus at least, actually maps to something in reality. Or if it doesn't at all. Is it just a complete global mish mash of people making it up as they go along?
It sounds as if it could be a mish-mash (probably a great scientific description!)! This is a scary issue but I do know that Dr Kendrick (a GP in the UK who writes a blog on medical issues) is at least worried about this issue! He wrote about part of this in his book, "Doctoring Data".
To be a hyperbolic here, do people sometimes go to the hospital with a headache and the doctor decides he needs to fill the quota for big pharma and tells the patient they have HIV (which doesn't exist, of course), so he can prescribe some treatment? And then those people die of AIDS later by coincidence? I guess we'd have to work out why that would happen. Perhaps the treatment itself is what causes AIDS?
No, I think the hypothesis is that you have a test that can be triggered in a number of rather vague ways that are associated with ill health, and that people who test positive, are then assumed to have HIV/AIDS and get treated with some pretty noxious pharmaceuticals!
I understand that there are a lot of ideas that don't seem to add up, and I get that Bauer is presenting a case. And I can try my best to understand it despite a lack of scientific background. But it also seems a worthy exercise to consider what the implications are, how this system could even function the way it does, to understand what the flip side of the coin is to see if it all fits together in a meaningful way.
The implications if this is true, are pretty awful - people being treated with really noxious chemicals for a disease that doesn't exist, or which is harmless - no question about it.

I am just one of those people who have become a bit wary of the standard, "these are AIDS denialists - just ignore them!" line! That simply isn't the way to treat alternative hypotheses in science or medicine! Remember, the core 'denialists' aren't armchair theorists, these are people who were acknowledged experts in their field - one with a Nobel Prize!

David
 
Last edited:
Heartfelt thank you to Vortex, Michael, David, Alex et al. who have been accurately citing what I've written. Out of gratitude I couldn't refuse the request to appear in this forum, but I really have nothing to add that isn't in my book and blogs and The Case Against HIV.
As to the claimed mapping of the HIV genome: I have not seen evidence that pure HIV virions have ever been isolated from an HIV+ individual or an AIDS patient. All the genomic stuff is based on "isolates" that are not pure virions, and the "whole genome" is constructed from bits of DNA/RNA found in those "isolates". Since the epidemiology of "HIV" is conclusive (see The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, Jefferson (NC): McFarland 2007) that what is detected is not an infectious agent, I've had no interest in trying to pin down what the precise errors are in the genomic claims --- other than to note that they are based on things found in mixtures of all sorts of stuff. I know that Duesberg believes that HIV exists, and cannot question his expertise in retrovirology, but I really don't understand his concept of "passenger virus". I am taken by Etienne de Harven's argument that "HIV" is a misinterpretation of HERVs (human endogenous retroviruses) and free-floating DNA/RNA bits. I also believe that the Perth Group have given convincing evidence that "HIV" has never been isolated and excellent reasons to doubt that "HIV" even exists. I've cited several times the admission in a mainstream monograph that there is no gold standard HIV test ((Stanley H. Weiss & Elliot P. Cowan, “Laboratory detection of human retroviral infection” in Gary P. Wormser [ed.], AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection)---no gold standard because there is no guaranteed pure sample of "HIV" available to standardize a test.

Re Wikipedia and homophobia:
The Wiki entry was likely made by Ken Witwer, then a graduate student at Johns Hopkins and member of the AIDStruth group; I judge based on what was in the "review" he had posted of my book on amazon. a "review" soon deleted; I hadn't made a copy and don't have one, if anyone does I'd appreciate a copy. As explained on my blog, Wikipedia does not allow individuals to correct their own bios. Of course I wish I had not been wrong about homosexuality but I may still be wrong about any number of things. However, I was never homophobic. I thought homosexuality was an abnormality --- neurosis, illness, likely owing to early childhood experiences; but I also thought that almost everyone (including myself) is neurotic in some way to some degree, and I had perfectly good relations with people I knew or suspected to be homosexual.

I've been more concerned over the last few years with the untrustworthiness of official science and medicine (Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth, Jefferson (NC): McFarland 2012), of which HIV/AIDS theory is just one example, albeit one that has caused and continues to cause enormous harm to enormous numbers of people.

If Chris and others don't have time to read my book and blogs and The Case, perhaps my "Confession of an AIDS 'Denialist'" would suffice. It summarizes how I got here, and also confirms that I use or misuse irony at times.

And again my thanks to those of you who have so ably reported and cited my views.

I tried to give links to what I cited but wasn't permitted to :-(== It's not only Wikipedia that I dislike about computer and internet matters
 
This is HIV:
http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/sequence/HIV/COMPENDIUM/2008/hiv1dna.pdf

I would like to know how they can get a DNA sequence from a virus that does not exist or has never been isolated. It must be a very effective conspiracy.
That's a DNA sequence from something, but is that thing a HIV retrovirus? Or simply something claimed to be a HIV retrovirus? The whole thrust of the sceptic argument is that so far, no one has proved the existence of HIV. If you believe it's a HIV retrovirus because that's what it's claimed to be, then as far as you're concerned, that's what it is. No conspiracy required: just trust that experts know what they're doing.

However, it's plain that there's something odd going on with HIV. The 1.16g/ml band should be packed with many indisputable HIV particles. Instead, what we find are a few particles amongst much cellular debris, of the wrong diameter, and with highly disputable evidence of knobs. Why, if they're so certain, doesn't someone come up with better EM pictures? That would resolve a lot of the doubts.
 
Whatever the sequence is, by definition that is HIV. If it is an endogenous retrovirus and not a simian virus that jumped species or a construct of an evil government conspiracy it is still HIV. They are isolating a virus from AIDS patients and sequencing it and calling it HIV. DNA sequencing techniques will tell if the sample is not pure.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/understanding/howhivcausesaids/pages/hivcausesaids.aspx

The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS

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).
 
Last edited:
When DNA becomes less regulated, possibly from a variety of reasons. Cells will bud out these viral like particles. Originaly called tumour viruses. But they did not cause cancer. Also the same particles found in cancer patients and immune imbalances.

These particles are expressed when cell regulation is disrupted. Probably why a variety of conditions could produce the genetic signatures of endogenous retro viruses. What are supposed as viral particles may be the cellular products due to cellular disruption. I think endogenous source fits the bill personally, and can explain why the conflict in the data is in it's interpretation. And probably why the current line of thinking has led to nothing but failure and big profits.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3385941/pdf/cshperspectmed-HIV-a006924.pdf
HIV-1 Assembly, Budding, and Maturation
Wesley I. Sundquist1 and Hans-Georg Kra¨ usslich2
1Department of Biochemistry, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-5650
2Department of Infectious Diseases, Virology, University of Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg,
Germany
Correspondence: wes@biochem.utah.edu; hans-georg.kraeusslich@med.uni-heidelberg.de

A defining property of retroviruses is their ability to assemble into particles that can leave
producer cells and spread infection to susceptible cells and hosts. Virion morphogenesis
can be divided into three stages: assembly, wherein the virion is created and essential components
are packaged; budding, wherein the virion crosses the plasma membrane and
obtains its lipid envelope; and maturation, wherein the virion changes structure and
becomes infectious. All of these stages are coordinated by the Gag polyprotein and its
proteolytic maturation products, which function as the major structural proteins of the
virus. Here, we review our current understanding of the mechanisms of HIV-1 assembly,
budding, and maturation, starting with a general overview and then providing detailed
descriptions of each of the different stages of virion morphogenesis.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HIV-1_Transmission_electron_micrograph_AIDS02bbb_lores.jpg
Description English: HIV-1. Transmission electron micrograph. Cone-shaped cores are sectioned in various orientations. Viral genomic RNA is located in the electron-dense wide end of core.
]​
 
Not that it matters, but that interview is almost 20 years old.

I'm a layperson, so it can be difficult to understand the science everyone seems to be an expert on here. But aren't there some basic questions that at least merit some attention? Like if HIV does not exist what exactly is it that the global medical and scientific field has been dealing with for decades on end? They're just all spinning their wheels pretending to treat something, or collectively agreeing to engage in conspiracy?

I'd like to know what is it that people are actually claiming here. Is it that there is actually nothing that exists that maps in reality to what the scientific establishment calls HIV? Or is it that the scientific establishment is wrong about exactly what HIV is but something does exist? There's quite a difference there.
A couple things: you say, and I don't know exactly how you mean it, that some seem to be "experts" here. I would differ. I don't think many of us that are expressing doubts are claiming anything with certainty. The video I posted seems to walk one through the questionable parts; granted it takes an hour and a half, but it's accessible and doesn't seem to be flim-flam. It's hard to know how to respond to what the woman in the video has to say. And that brings me to the second thing I wanted to say, which is what Michael already said: it's a sad state of affairs with Science (TM) since we can't even really trust the establishment enough to help us work through this problem or non-problem. They don't even seem to address it.

If you do watch the video, let us know what you think.

And yeah, I think your questions are good ones. I would wager that, if "deniers" are correct, the establishment isn't simply faking to keep a conspiracy going, but that the individuals believe in what they're doing . . .
 
Whatever the sequence is, by definition that is HIV. If it is an endogenous retrovirus and not a simian virus that jumped species or a construct of an evil government conspiracy it is still HIV. They are isolating a virus from AIDS patients and sequencing it and calling it HIV. DNA sequencing techniques will tell if the sample is not pure.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/understanding/howhivcausesaids/pages/hivcausesaids.aspx
So it has been isolated to the gold standard Jim? I would really like to know? DNA sequencing is done after purity is established Btw.
Did you read all of that stuff? A lot of uncited claims. It reeks a little I have to say. Also where does the EM come from? interesting to know what it was cultured with? Cord lymphocytes? Is it any different to what was done in the 80's ?

http://truthbarrier.com/2013/06/20/...terview-with-em-pioneer-dr-etienne-de-harven/
 
Not that it matters, but that interview is almost 20 years old.

I'm a layperson, so it can be difficult to understand the science everyone seems to be an expert on here. But aren't there some basic questions that at least merit some attention? Like if HIV does not exist what exactly is it that the global medical and scientific field has been dealing with for decades on end? They're just all spinning their wheels pretending to treat something, or collectively agreeing to engage in conspiracy?

I'd like to know what is it that people are actually claiming here. Is it that there is actually nothing that exists that maps in reality to what the scientific establishment calls HIV? Or is it that the scientific establishment is wrong about exactly what HIV is but something does exist? There's quite a difference there.
Sorry for replying twice, but I didn't want to edit the previous post and you not realize it. In the video I posted the interviewer basically asks very similar questions to you in just the first few minutes of the documentary.
 
C

Chris

I know that Duesberg believes that HIV exists, and cannot question his expertise in retrovirology, but I really don't understand his concept of "passenger virus". I am taken by Etienne de Harven's argument that "HIV" is a misinterpretation of HERVs (human endogenous retroviruses) and free-floating DNA/RNA bits. I also believe that the Perth Group have given convincing evidence that "HIV" has never been isolated and excellent reasons to doubt that "HIV" even exists.
I wasn't going to post here again, but as I have been named in Henry Bauer's post I'll make one observation.

I have very little time to spare, but I have actually done enough reading to know that in 2009 Bauer was the co-author (with Peter Duesberg) of an article which concluded that HIV was a passenger virus [this article was submitted to the journal Medical Hypotheses, but rejected]:
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...h_with_South_African_AIDS_-_A_new_perspective

Now we're told he doesn't really understand the concept of a passenger virus and thinks there are excellent reasons to doubt that HIV even exists. This change of mind about such a fundamental question seems very surprising to me, to say the least.

Frankly, I don't think anyone here has the expertise to reach a judgment about these questions from their own knowledge. It follows from that that they should be very careful about where they get their information from. That's all I'm going to say here.
 
Heartfelt thank you to Vortex, Michael, David, Alex et al. who have been accurately citing what I've written. Out of gratitude I couldn't refuse the request to appear in this forum, but I really have nothing to add that isn't in my book and blogs and The Case Against HIV.
Thanks for your detailed explanation, and I am glad we managed to pass on your ideas without distortions!

As to the claimed mapping of the HIV genome: I have not seen evidence that pure HIV virions have ever been isolated from an HIV+ individual or an AIDS patient. All the genomic stuff is based on "isolates" that are not pure virions, and the "whole genome" is constructed from bits of DNA/RNA found in those "isolates". Since the epidemiology of "HIV" is conclusive (see The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, Jefferson (NC): McFarland 2007) that what is detected is not an infectious agent, I've had no interest in trying to pin down what the precise errors are in the genomic claims --- other than to note that they are based on things found in mixtures of all sorts of stuff. I know that Duesberg believes that HIV exists, and cannot question his expertise in retrovirology, but I really don't understand his concept of "passenger virus". I am taken by Etienne de Harven's argument that "HIV" is a misinterpretation of HERVs (human endogenous retroviruses) and free-floating DNA/RNA bits. I also believe that the Perth Group have given convincing evidence that "HIV" has never been isolated and excellent reasons to doubt that "HIV" even exists. I've cited several times the admission in a mainstream monograph that there is no gold standard HIV test ((Stanley H. Weiss & Elliot P. Cowan, “Laboratory detection of human retroviral infection” in Gary P. Wormser [ed.], AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection)---no gold standard because there is no guaranteed pure sample of "HIV" available to standardize a test.
I think it might help to contrast this situation with what typically happens when viruses are identified as the cause of a disease - remember that none of us are virologists! I know some viruses will actually crystallize, but assuming some don't, how well are viruses normally purified when they are identified as the cause of a disease?

Also, do you have any comment on something that Jim_Smith quoted:

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).
I guess the statement that HIV was isolated from the patients has to be taken with something of a pinch of salt in view of the fact that HIV has never been properly isolated!

What do you think the quote "concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory" refers to - they certainly want to try to make it sound like any other virus?

Clearly all these unfortunate individuals must have been treated with anti-HIV drugs, so might the illness be simply the side effects of the drugs - what a horrible muddle!

Finally, new posters are prevented from posting links, just to cut down on spam, but I think you can circumvent this restriction by writing then in a form that requires a human to reassemble them, for example: http www google dot com

Alternatively, if you email me, with the information, I will post it here.

David
 
Last edited:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HIV-1_Transmission_electron_micrograph_AIDS02bbb_lores.jpg
Description English: HIV-1. Transmission electron micrograph. Cone-shaped cores are sectioned in various orientations. Viral genomic RNA is located in the electron-dense wide end of core.
]​
That's an impressive electronmicrograph of what appears to be a highly purified sample of a retrovirus (from 1985), complete with surface knobs. The label in the PHIL library says it's the HIV-1 virus and that it was supplied by the CDC/Dr. Edwin P. Ewing, Jr.

It evidently doesn't come from the paper you cite, where the electronmicrographs aren't as convincing. So where does it come from? What is its provenance? How do we know it's HIV-1? That's how it's labelled, but where's the connection to a published source? You see, if such a source exists and it definitely is of a purified HIV isolate, then that's pretty strong evidence: but in the film that Reece posted, and in Eleni's interview, it's never been mentioned by either side. One would imagine that Gallo would be jumping up and down waving it in the air, and yet, strangely, he isn't, despite the fact it was putatively produced in 1985 and so has been available for 30 years.

I suspect that it's a picture of a retrovirus sample all right, but to be convinced it's HIV-1, I'd need to check its provenance--can you supply that?
 
As a layman, the question you should ask yourself is how it can be that well respected researchers - such as Henry Bauer - are suddenly shunned the the science community for pointing out that a theory might be wrong. Shouldn't these issues be discussed openly at scientific conferences? Also, did you read that statement (above) by Karry Mullis - who has a Nobel Prize for molecular biology? If you have achieved those heights you don't stick your neck out unless you are pretty sure you are right!

Well it isn't clear that much has changed. For example, they promised a vaccine and several attempts have failed.

When someone is found to be HIV positive, they are given anti-retroviral drugs that are very poisonous. Bauer and others are claiming that the symptoms of AIDS are disturbingly similar to the side effects of these toxic drugs - surely you see the point?

David
*bump* *bump*
 
Heartfelt thank you to Vortex, Michael, David, Alex et al. who have been accurately citing what I've written. Out of gratitude I couldn't refuse the request to appear in this forum, but I really have nothing to add that isn't in my book and blogs and The Case Against HIV.
When DNA becomes less regulated, possibly from a variety of reasons. Cells will bud out these viral like particles. Originaly called tumour viruses. But they did not cause cancer. Also the same particles found in cancer patients and immune imbalances.

These particles are expressed when cell regulation is disrupted. Probably why a variety of conditions could produce the genetic signatures of endogenous retro viruses. What are supposed as viral particles may be the cellular products due to cellular disruption. I think endogenous source fits the bill personally, and can explain why the conflict in the data is in it's interpretation. And probably why the current line of thinking has led to nothing but failure and big profits.
I wasn't going to post here again, but as I have been named in Henry Bauer's post I'll make one observation.

I have very little time to spare, but I have actually done enough reading to know that in 2009 Bauer was the co-author (with Peter Duesberg) of an article which concluded that HIV was a passenger virus [this article was submitted to the journal Medical Hypotheses, but rejected]:
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...h_with_South_African_AIDS_-_A_new_perspective

Now we're told he doesn't really understand the concept of a passenger virus and thinks there are excellent reasons to doubt that HIV even exists. This change of mind about such a fundamental question seems very surprising to me, to say the least.

Frankly, I don't think anyone here has the expertise to reach a judgment about these questions from their own knowledge. It follows from that that they should be very careful about where they get their information from. That's all I'm going to say here.
That's an impressive electronmicrograph of what appears to be a highly purified sample of a retrovirus (from 1985), complete with surface knobs. The label in the PHIL library says it's the HIV-1 virus and that it was supplied by the CDC/Dr. Edwin P. Ewing, Jr.

It evidently doesn't come from the paper you cite, where the electronmicrographs aren't as convincing. So where does it come from? What is its provenance? How do we know it's HIV-1? That's how it's labelled, but where's the connection to a published source? You see, if such a source exists and it definitely is of a purified HIV isolate, then that's pretty strong evidence: but in the film that Reece posted, and in Eleni's interview, it's never been mentioned by either side. One would imagine that Gallo would be jumping up and down waving it in the air, and yet, strangely, he isn't, despite the fact it was putatively produced in 1985 and so has been available for 30 years.

I suspect that it's a picture of a retrovirus sample all right, but to be convinced it's HIV-1, I'd need to check its provenance--can you supply that?
I am not sure about this, but if you lookup the "HIV-1/SIVcpz" heading, you seem to get refernces to SIV, which is a disease that is supposed to be similar to HIV but which causes a mild disease in chimps.

David
A couple things: you say, and I don't know exactly how you mean it, that some seem to be "experts" here. I would differ. I don't think many of us that are expressing doubts are claiming anything with certainty. The video I posted seems to walk one through the questionable parts; granted it takes an hour and a half, but it's accessible and doesn't seem to be flim-flam. It's hard to know how to respond to what the woman in the video has to say. And that brings me to the second thing I wanted to say, which is what Michael already said: it's a sad state of affairs with Science (TM) since we can't even really trust the establishment enough to help us work through this problem or non-problem. They don't even seem to address it.

If you do watch the video, let us know what you think.

And yeah, I think your questions are good ones. I would wager that, if "deniers" are correct, the establishment isn't simply faking to keep a conspiracy going, but that the individuals believe in what they're doing . . .
Whatever the sequence is, by definition that is HIV. If it is an endogenous retrovirus and not a simian virus that jumped species or a construct of an evil government conspiracy it is still HIV. They are isolating a virus from AIDS patients and sequencing it and calling it HIV. DNA sequencing techniques will tell if the sample is not pure.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/understanding/howhivcausesaids/pages/hivcausesaids.aspx
Several apparent chronological, demographic and geographic incosistencies and incoherences of HIV-AIDS theory - ones which can be understood even by a layperson - were shortly summarised by Bauer in this seminar:

Truth Stranger than Fiction
 
Top