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

Yeah none of us are experts. But it does not take an expert to ask if it actually has been shown by the original standards set by virology? Or ask if it is indeed true that there are no EM of these particles to be shown directly in the actual blood of patients, only in cultures with stimulants that produce reverse transcriptase? This claim was made by one of the pioneers of electron micrography, apparently it remains true. The failure in protocols is quite clear concerning the original studies and EM of the 80's. The problem is that these questions should be easily satisfied after 30 years. It seems that the reason Kary Mullis could not find his citation is that it actually does not exist? I mean these should be well established.
 
Why don't you try clicking on the link?
As far I'm aware, I've clicked on all the links in your post and in what those lead to. All I can see in PHIL is the attribution in 1985 to the CDC/Dr. Edwin P. Ewing, Jr.

What I can't see anywhere is the link to the paper from which the photo was taken, if indeed it comes from a paper. Help me out here: if I've missed the link, please could you re-supply it? As it stands, all I seem to see is a picture that is labelled HIV-1. It's apparently a retrovirus, but apart from a label, I don't see any provenance for that claim.
 
You can't tell if it is a retro virus just from EM. Not everything that looks like a retro virus is a retro virus. And all images are from cultures that are more or less retro viral soups, stimulated with growth factors. The only way to know for sure is by the standards that were ignored in the original research.

Are there EM of wild samples directly taken from the blood of patients I wonder?
 
You can't tell if it is a retro virus just from EM. Not everything that looks like a retro virus is a retro virus. And all images are from cultures that are more or less retro viral soups, stimulated with growth factors. The only way to know for sure is by the standards that were ignored in the original research.

Are there EM of wild samples directly taken from the blood of patients I wonder?
What you say is true when there's a lot of cellular debris around: there may be elements of that which look like retroviruses. But the purified isolate shown in the picture lessens the doubt: plainly, there are many examples all around the same diameter with the same appearance (but no scale is provided, so I can't determine for sure the size of the particles). Personally, I'm reasonably satisfied it's a picture of a retrovirus.

What I have no evidence for is that, apart from the label, it's a picture of HIV-1; which is why I've asked Jim for the provenance of the picture so I can check that's what it actually is. In the absence of that, he's merely accepting that's what it is because that's how it's labelled.

I'm not an expert in retroviruses, but I spent three years as an electronmicroscopist after graduation in zoology, and am reasonably skilled in interpreting electronmicrographs; more, at any rate, than the average person.
 
What you say is true when there's a lot of cellular debris around: there may be elements of that which look like retroviruses. But the purified isolate shown in the picture lessens the doubt: plainly, there are many examples all around the same diameter with the same appearance (but no scale is provided, so I can't determine for sure the size of the particles). Personally, I'm reasonably satisfied it's a picture of a retrovirus.
But the claim is it has not been properly isolated. If it is pure isolated HIV that can replicate in uncontaminated cells then that is the standard. It may very well be a retro virus, the origin is the thing. Without the further steps there is nothing to say these are a result of having aids you could say. Cells do indeed produce particles that look identical to retro viruses. It should be noted that a range endogenous viruses are said to be activated by HIV and even contribute to some of its proteins. None of this was known twenty years ago. This clouds the waters somewhat and adds a much bigger dimension.

What I have no evidence for is that, apart from the label, it's a picture of HIV-1; which is why I've asked Jim for the provenance of the picture so I can check that's what it actually is. In the absence of that, he's merely accepting that's what it is because that's how it's labelled.
You should read this.
http://truthbarrier.com/2013/06/20/...terview-with-em-pioneer-dr-etienne-de-harven/
 
But the claim is it has not been properly isolated. If it is pure isolated HIV that can replicate in uncontaminated cells then that is the standard. It may very well be a retro virus, the origin is the thing.
Exactly.
Without the further steps there is nothing to say these are a result of having aids you could say. Cells do indeed produce particles that look identical to retro viruses. It should be noted that a range endogenous viruses are said to be activated by HIV and even contribute to some of its proteins. None of this was known twenty years ago. This clouds the waters somewhat and adds a much bigger dimension.
Yes, I agree. That's why I keep on asking Jim for the provenance of the picture: which would hopefully be a paper where the full methodology of isolation and purification was laid out, as well as the source of the specimen. As it is, all we have is a picture that for all we know could of some other retrovirus, exogenous or endogenous.
Thanks. Will read and may respond.
 
Last edited:
http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bsci424/BSCI223WebSiteFiles/KochsPostulates.htm

Koch's Postulates

Four criteria that were established by Robert Koch to identify the causative agent of a particular disease, these include:

1.the microorganism or other pathogen must be present in all cases of the disease

2.the pathogen can be isolated from the diseased host and grown in pure culture

3.the pathogen from the pure culture must cause the disease when inoculated into a healthy, susceptible laboratory animal

4.the pathogen must be reisolated from the new host and shown to be the same as the originally inoculated pathogen
http://dobzhanskycenter.bio.spbu.ru/pdf/sjop/MS341_O'Brien_HIV Newsline 2ndary.pdf
The HIV-AIDS Debate Is Over
By Stephen J. O'Brien, Ph.D.
February 1997

During the early years of the AIDS epidemic, both defenders and critics of the theory
that HIV causes AIDS agreed that HIV failed to completely fulfill Koch's postulates (1, 7,
13, 14, 25). As defenders of the theory were quick to point out, a number of other
diseases, notably typhoid fever, diphtheria, and leprosy, also fail to meet these
stringent tests of causality -- yet there is no controversy about what causes these
illnesses. We know the pathogens that produce these diseases; what we cannot do with
consistency is culture those pathogens in vitro.

This was the problem with HIV as well, until recently. There was little question, even
among the counter-theorists, that HIV clearly satisfied the first and second of Koch's
postulates, but it proved considerably harder to show that HIV also fulfilled the third.
Today, however, overwhelming epidemiological and experimental data have been
assembled to fulfill all three of Koch's postulates, establishing to a virtual certainty that
HIV causes AIDS (26).

[postulate 1]


Demonstrating the epidemiological concordance of HIV exposure and AIDS was
relatively straightforward, once the etiologic agent had been identified. Numerous
studies have shown, for example, that prompt and progressive depletion of CD4
lymphocytes -- and a subsequent diagnosis of AIDS -- follows HIV seroconversion in the
vast majority of HIV-infected hemophiliacs (27, 28), and HIV antibodies have been
detected in more than 90% of transfusion recipients who received blood from donors
who were HIV-positive. In the latter group seroconversion has likewise led to
progressive depletion of CD4 cells and the onset of AIDS (27-29).

Two recent cohort studies of HIV-positive hemophiliacs have provided an even more
direct link between HIV infection and mortality: They show a ten-fold increase in deaths
among antibody-positive patients compared to uninfected individuals, irrespective of
the severity of the subjects' hemophilia (30, 31). Significantly, since the screening of
donated blood for the presence of HIV was instituted, new infections have dropped
almost to zero among hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients -- further proof that HIV
is the cause of AIDS.

The fact that HIV itself (or antibodies to the virus) can be detected in more than 95% --
but fewer than 100% -- of AIDS patients worldwide is explained by the relative
insensitivity of the early tests for the presence of HIV in patients' peripheral blood. By
the more sensitive HIV RNA assays now used to detect the virus, it is possible to
confirm the presence of HIV in individuals who have as few as 20 viral particles per mL
of blood (see "The HIV RNA Assay: A Valuable New Diagnostic Tool," Vol. 2, No. 2).
Sensitive as these new diagnostic tests are, they will not detect HIV in all profoundly
immunocompromised patients -- not because the virus fails Koch's test for
pathogenicity but because other disorders cause the body's immune system to collapse
(32, 33). Certain drugs also produce immune suppression, as do chemical carcinogens,
irradiation, and cigarette smoke.
[postulate 2]

The isolation component of Koch's postulates has been repeatedly demonstrated since
the discovery of HIV. Scores of isolates have been cultured from AIDS patients; the
virus has been cultivated in fresh human T lymphocytes; and cultured-cell lines have
been developed for in vitro propagation (10, 34).
...
[postulate 3]

This leaves only Koch's third postulate
-- transmission pathogenesis -- as a matter of contention. Ethical considerations
preclude the experimental inoculation of uninfected individuals with HIV, and this
makes empirical verification of Koch's last postulate exceedingly difficult.


Difficult, but not impossible. For while we cannot deliberately infect anyone with HIV
merely to satisfy Koch's postulates and Duesberg's curiosity, we can examine the
evidence that has been gathered on healthcare workers who were accidentally infected
with HIV in the course of their professional work. Take, for example, the cases of three
laboratory technicians who were inadvertently exposed to the HTLV-IIIb strain of HIV-1
while working with that strain in their laboratories (35). All three of these technicians
developed antibodies to HIV, and within five years all three showed marked CD4
lymphocyte depletion. Two had their CD4 counts fall to less than 200 cells/mm3, and
one of those developed PCP.

In all three of these cases it was possible to establish the precise phylogenetic type of
the virus that had infected the laboratory workers. When genetic sequencing tests were
performed on the laboratory virus and on viral samples taken from the three workers,
the sequence divergence was less than 3% (36). This low level of divergence is
equivalent to the variation observed in cases of HIV transmission from mothers to their
infants -- and it is less than one third as great as the extent of variation seen when
viral samples from unconnected patients are compared (37, 38). Thus, these three
unfortunate individuals provide prima facie evidence of transmission pathogenesis,
Koch's third postulate.


This same high level of genetic concordance was also seen when the C.D.C. compared
viral samples taken from a Florida dentist who died of AIDS with samples taken from
five of his patients who tested positive for HIV and who had no HIV risk factors other
than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (39, 40). Two independent
research groups reached the same conclusion after examining the HIV gene sequences
of these six individuals: the dentist had almost certainly infected his patients in the
course of those invasive procedures, although the experts could not say exactly how
those infections had occurred (41-44).


It is unlikely that we will ever learn how transmission occurred in this unique cluster of
infections, but the genetic data gathered from the victims of this tragedy teach us an
important lesson: They establish, as conclusively as science can establish such things,
that when HIV is inadvertently transferred from a person with AIDS to an uninfected
host, it does indeed produce AIDS in that host (45). And thus it satisfies the last, and
most rigorous, of Koch's postulates.
 
Last edited:
Just answer the question. Is there or is there not a reference to a paper from which the photo you posted was taken? If there is, I will look at it to see if I can determine whether or not it's actually of the HIV-1 virus.

I'm not quite sure why you're being so obtuse in view of how you began in this thread: unless it's some kind of performance art where you're illustrating the obstinacy and evasiveness of the orthodoxy. Whatever, it isn't helping me, and I'm getting tired of it. Put up or shut up, otherwise you're going on my ignore list because I can't be bothered having to deal with you and figure out where you're coming from.
 
Last edited:

Two recent cohort studies of HIV-positive hemophiliacs have provided an even more
direct link between HIV infection and mortality: They show a ten-fold increase in deaths
among antibody-positive patients compared to uninfected individuals, irrespective of
the severity of the subjects' hemophilia (30, 31). Significantly, since the screening of
donated blood for the presence of HIV was instituted, new infections have dropped
almost to zero among hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients -- further proof that HIV
is the cause of AIDS.​
I think there are at least 3 possible caveats here.

1) Were those found to be HIV-positive treated with anti-retrovirals? If they were, these drugs mimic AIDS symptoms to some extent and kill people!

2) Eleni explains in her lengthy interview (the full version) that testing positive for HIV definitely means you are at risk of health problems - it just isn't clear what exactly it measures! It is probably worth reading the full version of this, because it puts a lot of issues into perspective. For example, without a fully purified virus, you can't test antibodies to determine if they react to that virus, and that virus alone. She explains that a lot of antibodies aren't that specific. She also explains that the identification of a retrovirus is done by looking for reverse transcriptase, but that is also complicated by the fact that this enzyme can come from other places. On top of that, the body (and cultured cells) can produce endogenous retroviruses when under various sorts of stress!

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aids/hivexist/

3) The phrase "show a ten-fold increase in deaths among antibody-positive patients" might be a bit weasely because it doesn't say the HIV-positive hemophiliacs died of AIDS, nor does it say if they were treated with toxic drugs (presumably they were)!

After reading Dr Kendrick's book "Doctoring Data" (which I would strongly recommend everyone reads) I have learned that you sometimes have to look at the wording of medical science claims very closely!

David
 
Postulate 1. Antibodies persist after a pathogen is long gone so they can't be evidence for the existence of the pathogen. These tests do not detect viral particles.

Postulate 2. Culturing is not isolation and purification.

Postulate 3. The original disease is a collection of diseases and many healthy people with HIV enjoy a long life. Many treatments are immuno surpressing.

Postulate 4. PCR test do not necessarily imply the presence of HIV.

http://www.rethinkingaids.com/gallorebuttal/Farber-Gallo-40.html
 
I'd actually like to ask a couple of questions about this

1. what exactly is to be gained from denying AIDS/HIV or the link between the two? We have a ton of evidence showing a link. To dismiss it is to assume that the thousands of doctors and nurses, and the perhaps millions of sufferers are all complicit in some sort of conspiracy, which is implausible to say the least. Denying AIDS seems to be not only ignorant but dangerous.
2. Please kindly explain why 300,000 people dropped dead from AIDS in South Africa over the period when Thabo Mbeki was in power, and was explicit in his denial of it.
3. On a related note, 12% of South Africans and 18% of adults have the disease now. Either they are all lying, or surprise surprise, they are infected with it. Denying it will only condemn those millions to death.
 
1. what exactly is to be gained from denying AIDS/HIV or the link between the two? We have a ton of evidence showing a link. To dismiss it is to assume that the thousands of doctors and nurses, and the perhaps millions of sufferers are all complicit in some sort of conspiracy, which is implausible to say the least. Denying AIDS seems to be not only ignorant but dangerous.
During 18th, 19th and early 20th century, the overwhelming majority of Western scientists and medical doctors believed that masturbation was a devastatingly dangerous practice, which caused a terrible number of severe physical and mental problems . Now we know that their belief in catastrophic perils of masturbation was totally baseless - in fact, just plain wrong.

Does it mean that nearly all scientists and doctors of the West were participants of a global conspiracy that lasted for two centuries? Certainly not. It just mean that the scientific and medical consensus of the time was wrong - and that the vast majority of doctors and scientists were sincerely believing what they were taught, and have no tendency to rebel against the established academic positions.

The situatuion today is still the same - most academicians and practitioners accept the dominant dogma without much questioning. Why? Because they believe in it, and assume that this is a reasonable choice. They are not some kind of malicious conspirators; they are honest believers in this dogma, whose choise may be misguided - but still sincere.

Of course, rebels do exist - but their fate, as fate of all heretics, is quite unpleasant. They suffer a whole range of harsh consequences of their dissidence, from personal vilification in media to refusal of funding and promotion to outright banishment from profession. And - and this is the most terrible fact of all - ones who attack these contrarians, ones who mercilessly destroy their careers and damage their lives, are thinking that they are doing the right thing. They are thinking that they are protecting the profession - and the gullible public - from the sinful influence of deceptive or delusional individuals and groups. For these attackers, their victims are either mad or bad, and have nobody but themselves to blame for the misery which fall on them.

Most of attackers will not even try to familiaraze themselves with the heretical experiments and theories. The reason is simple - they are certain that there are nothing to understand at all, or at least nothing worth understanding. For them, everyting that contradict the current consensus is by definition faulty or fradulent, and anyone who disagree is a madman or a liar.

These are the common processes of human psyche and society - processes to which academicians are not immune; to the contrary, they are easy victims of them. They do not require organized conspiring; they require only uncritical acceptance of authority - probably the most common, and the most dangerous, psychosocial weakness of human species.
 
During 18th, 19th and early 20th century, the overwhelming majority of Western scientists and medical doctors believed that masturbation was a devastatingly dangerous practice, which caused a terrible number of severe physical and mental problems . Now we know that their belief in catastrophic perils of masturbation was totally baseless - in fact, just plain wrong.

Does it mean that nearly all scientists and doctors of the West were participants of a global conspiracy that lasted for two centuries? Certainly not. It just mean that the scientific and medical consensus of the time was wrong - and that the vast majority of doctors and scientists were sincerely believing what they were taught, and have no tendency to rebel against the established academic positions.

The situatuion today is still the same - most academicians and practitioners accept the dominant dogma without much questioning. Why? Because they believe in it, and assume that this is a reasonable choice. They are not some kind of malicious conspirators; they are honest believers in this dogma, whose choise may be misguided - but still sincere.

Of course, rebels do exist - but their fate, as fate of all heretics, is quite unpleasant. They suffer a whole range of harsh consequences of their dissidence, from personal vilification in media to refusal of funding and promotion to outright banishment from profession. And - and this is the most terrible fact of all - ones who attack these contrarians, ones who mercilessly destroy their careers and damage their lives, are thinking that they are doing the right thing. They are thinking that they are protecting the profession - and the gullible public - from the sinful influence of deceptive or delusional individuals and groups. For these attackers, their victims are either mad or bad, and have nobody but themselves to blame for the misery which fall on them.

Most of attackers will not even try to familiaraze themselves with the heretical experiments and theories. The reason is simple - they are certain that there are nothing to understand at all, or at least nothing worth understanding. For them, everyting that contradict the current consensus is by definition faulty or fradulent, and anyone who disagree is a madman or a liar.

These are the common processes of human psyche and society - processes to which academicians are not immune; to the contrary, they are easy victims of them. They do not require organized conspiring; they require only uncritical acceptance of authority - probably the most common, and the most dangerous, psychosocial weakness of human species.
Of course people can be wrong, absolutely. In the late 19th and turn to the 20th century, most scientists thought physics was complete. They were wrong.

Most scientists at least in public think psi is nonsense. Shermer in his upcoming debates with Sheldrake sees psi evidence as artefacts of poor controls, despite the fact the parapsychology has pioneered double blinding and publishing of null results since at least the joint honorton-hyman communique. Most scientists thought germ theory was nonsense, until the evidence mounted. So I completely agree that challenging consensus can be detrimental to ones life and career. AIDS denial however is not pioneering, and your post doesn't really address the point that AIDS/HIV are almost certainly linked, that 300,000 South Africans died as a direct result of Mbeki's denialist policies, and that in much similar vein, millions of South Africans are infected with it.
 
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.
What I mean by this is people posting links to scientific-y fact pages, as if it's some kind of proof of something and something the individual understands. This happens on both sides, and I don't see the point of it as I'm guessing most people here lack any formal knowledge of the data. Lobbing talking point pages at one another just seems to obfuscate the whole issue: there is nothing murkier and more lame IMO than a strict scientific debate between non scientists. What I'm looking for is an honest discussion about how something like this is even possible (HIV not existing), and is this represented realistically in the world we see before us.

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 . . .
Before we get into the doc I just want to make sure the one you're talking about is The Emperor's New Virus. I watched that and I don't find it convincing. I would be happy to discuss why, but I want to make sure that's the doc you mentioned above.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
What I am looking for is the hard scientific data. Any help would be great.

It is also pretty lame when non scientists eat up what they don't understand and make simplistic notions of about the nature of complex condition.
 
I wasn't going to post here again, but as I have been named in Henry Bauer's post I'll make one observation.

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.
Critical thinkers who are self-critical have changes of mind on fundamental questions all the time (of which there are millions of examples). Thank you for producing such an idiotic statement for my amusement.
 
Top