HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

Nobel Prize Citation for “HIV” “Discovery”: Errors and Deficiencies

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/10/16

I’m grateful to Stefan R. for providing the link to the full citation by the Nobel Committee, which I hadn’t located by Googling. Here are a few of the deficiencies that jumped out on first reading.

The initial appearance of AIDS is said to have been in “clusters of previously healthy young men”, repeating mindlessly a worn, faulty shibboleth. Michelle Cochrane (When AIDS Began: San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, 2004), however, looked at the original medical records and found that they were anything but “previously healthy”, and “young” would apply only if that is taken to mean people in the middle to upper 30s (The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, p. 187 ff.).

It is more subtly misleading, but misleading nonetheless, to say that they “suffered from different life threatening medical conditions”. A crucial clue to what AIDS really was in the early 1980s is the fact that the original victims displayed predominantly two types of condition: Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS), a disorder of blood vessels that was almost certainly the direct result of excessive inhalation of nitrites, and fungal infections — chiefly Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) and candidiasis — that followed excessive indulgence in practices that destroy the intestinal microflora which normally keep those endemic fungi in check [see Tony Lance, “Gay-Related Intestinal Dysbiosis”, in “What really caused AIDS: Slicing through the Gordian Knot”, 20 February 2008]. Those two types of condition accounted for more than 80% of the 16,000 AIDS cases recorded through 1985; that percentage decreased gradually only after “HIV-positive” rather than clinical condition became the criterion for an AIDS diagnosis.

The assertion, “A huge epidemiological survey initiated by CDC in 1982 concluded that the AIDS syndrome had spread globally”, lacks a sorely needed specific reference.
The CDC Report for 8 July 1982 cites 452 cases, 441 from 23 states in the USA and only 11 from other (unnamed) countries. Reports for 1983 and later refer specifically only to the United States. The Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report of 24 September 1982 mentions 597 cases within the USA and an additional 41 cases from 10 foreign countries. That hardly seems like the outcome of a “huge epidemiological survey” that discovered a global epidemic.

“A subset of the population at particular risk for this syndrome appeared to be homosexual males and intravenous drug users” is also subtly misleading about a condition that seemed and seems to be virtually restricted to those groups in most parts of the world.

“The immunodeficiency was associated with rapid elimination of CD4+ T cells” cites 71: Gottlieb MS, Schroff R, Schanker HM, and Saxon A. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and mucosal candidiasis in previously healthy homosexual men: evidence of a new acquired cellular immunodeficiency. N Engl J Med. 1981;305:1425-31, which does “associate” — correlate — AIDS with low CD4+ counts, but doesn’t and could not speak to “rapid elimination” (as well as being wrong about the “previously healthy”, see above). Gottlieb et al., moreover, reported in detail on only 4 cases, hardly a basis for any sweeping generalization; and the association they thought most pronounced was with cytomegalovirus.

“The clinical AIDS spectrum was defined as repeated opportunistic infections . . . occurring in previously healthy adults with no history of inherited disorders” follows a sentence mentioning haemophiliacs among the risk groups; yet haemophiliacs do have an inherited disorder.

An interesting sentence is [emphases added] “Malignancies associated with AIDS included an aggressive type of Kaposi’s sarcoma caused by human Herpes virus 8, EBV-associated lymphoma, HPV-induced cervical cancer, and Hodgkin’s disease (75)”. Thus it is clearly acknowledged that at least 3 of the 4 malignancies are caused by something other than HIV; and moreover the citation is wrong: (75) is “Rozenbaum W. Multiple opportunistic infections in a male homosexual in France. Lancet. 1982; 6;1(8271):572-3”, a letter of 5 paragraphs in which none of those malignancies is mentioned.

“The disorder also manifested as slim disease due to chronic incurable diarrhoea, particularly in Africa”. So: is “chronic incurable diarrhoea” an opportunistic infection owing to immunedeficiency, or perhaps a malignancy?

“Epidemiological studies had already been [sic] established that AIDS was transmitted sexually, via placenta to foetuses and via transfusion by plasma and coagulation products (76)”; 76 is: Francis DP, Curran JW, Essex M. Epidemic acquired immune deficiency syndrome: epidemiologic evidence for a transmissible agent. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1983;71(1):1-4.
That article does much less than “establish” those things (in fact, the piece is labeled a Guest Editorial, hardly the sort of thing one cites as “establishing” anything). That “the syndrome has appeared almost simultaneously in socially disparate and distinct population groups who share only their predilection for other infectious diseases” merely suggests a connection with sexually transmitted diseases, while avoiding the issue of outbreaks distributed in widely separated geographic locations. That “80% . . . [of AIDS victims were] between 25 and 44”, on the other hand, hardly points to an infectious agent, since those are typically more dangerous to the very young and the very old. The remark [emphasis added] that “this putative agent must circulate in the blood” again does much less than even claim to “establish” an infectious cause. Moreover, Francis et al. acknowledge that any unifying hypothesis encounters the dilemma that KS occurs almost exclusively in only one of the risk groups. Hindsight reveals that this editorial was also wrong on two rather important counts: that PCP is a fungal infection, not a parasitic one, and that the supposed latent period is on the order of 10-15 years (the Nobel Committee’s estimate) rather than ≥12 months.

“A number of pieces of evidence pointed towards a retroviral origin for the acquired immune deficiency; the clusters of patients affected, the transmission via filtered blood products and the establishment of loss of CD4 T helper lymphocytes” is an extraordinary statement; there was no precedent for a retrovirus killing off CD4 cells, so how could this “point towards” such an interpretation? Furthermore, transmission by filtered blood would indicate a virus, but not necessarily a retrovirus. That clusters of people were affected doesn’t even indict an infectious agent, it could be an environmental factor, like — say — the gastric cancers in Chinese and other  locations where nitrites or nitrosamines are for some reason present in exceptionally high amounts (e.g., You et al., Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 5 [1996] 47-52).

The “discovery” of the “retrovirus” is described in considerable detail, the salient step being the first one: “Virus production was detected by reverse transcriptase (RT) enzyme activity in supernatants from cultured and activated lymphocytes obtained from a lymph node from a patient with lymphadenopathy”; “They cultured purified lymphocytes from such patients in vitro in the presence of the phytohaemagglutinin (PHA)-mitogen, interleukin-2 (IL-2) and anti-interferon-a in order to allow T cell proliferation” — in other words, as several Rethinkers have pointed out, the “virus” was created in a witch’s brew designed to stimulate proliferation of the very cells supposedly killed by the virus; and the presence of a retrovirus was inferred from the fact of reverse transcriptase activity — and, later, it turned out that such activity is routinely present as part of normal cell function. There was no isolation of virus particles from a supposedly infected individual.

And so on. Rethinkers will relish such statements as “In 1985 the nucleotide sequence of the full AIDS virus genome was established”, since this was done by indirect inference without ever having access to a genuine virion. It may turn out to be unwittingly prescient, though, that “The retrovirus family consists of the Oncovirus (including HTLV-I & -II), Lentivirus (including HIV-1 &-2) and Spumavirus also called foamy virus and the so far considered non-pathogenic, Endogenous retrovirus”, since “HIV” could well belong to the Endogenous and non-pathogenic class.

The origin and spread of “HIV” in Africa are illustrated nicely by a Figure showing transmission routes out of Cameroon (thick brown lines with arrows, arrowheads enhanced for easier viewing):

However, it is not explained why the virus has remained largely in southern Africa rather than in the other places to which it  headed and which are closer to its origin, though that fact is properly illustrated in another Figure:

Note, by the way, that the USA is relatively little “infected” even though this was where AIDS first appeared; and that Eastern Europe and Russia are significantly more infected even though the epidemic there is said to be carried largely by injecting drug users! [“HIV/AIDS illustrates cognitive dissonance”, 29 April 2008]. This Figure also displays the extraordinary ability of “HIV” to quarantine itself at regional boundaries. One might also quibble about the choice of a category of “1.0 – ≤5.0 %”, since this gives the Russian Federation, at an estimated 1.1%, a deeper color and more prominent presence than almost any other region outside Africa, the others being Papua at 1.8%, Thailand at 1.4%, and thereby understates how quarantined middle and southern Africa at ≥5% are from the rest of the world at ≤2%.

The detailed description of how HIV works is rather at odds with the several publications which confess that this remains a mystery, for example, “The pathogenic and physiologic processes leading to AIDS remain a conundrum” (Grossman et al., Nature Medicine 12 [2006] 289-95); and the Nobel description is itself a shade mystifying, for example, “Immune activation and inflammation supplies additional activated CD4+ T cells, which both sustain infection and elicit an immunosuppressive response that blunts host defences. Although increasing numbers of cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) partially control infection they do not prevent, in the absence of therapy, the slow and continued depletion of CD4+ T cells that is responsible for the occurrence of the immune deficiency that eventually leads to AIDS” [emphases added]. This is a fascinating double-barreled action during the postulated latent period of about 10 years during which “viral load” is very low; with the explanatory barrels pointing in opposite directions, that seems rather hazardous to one’s (mental) health. There are similarly puzzling explanations of “host defence” and its sophisticated evasion by “HIV”. None of these explanations are labeled speculative, as they should properly be.

The Nobel Committee’s erratic citation practices are illustrated also by “The discovery of HIV allowed for a rapid dissection of the viral replication cycle (Fig 13) (129)”, which led me to think that reference 129 would recount that “rapid dissection”. Instead, it is an article in press (as of 15 October, “Please cite this article in press as: Greene, W.C., et al., Novel targets for HIV therapy. Antiviral Res [2008], doi:10.1016/j.antiviral.2008.08.003”); and it is a review of the search for “Novel targets for HIV therapy”, brief summaries of talks presented at the 21st International Conference on Antiviral Research held in April 2008 in Montreal; such a search certainly being needed in view of “the emergence of drug resistance and various adverse effects associated with long-term use of antiretroviral therapy”. That review has a useful table of antiretroviral drugs and their date of approval. The earliest, AZT (zidovudine, ZDV, Retrovir), approved in 1987, owed nothing to an understanding of the viral replication cycle; the next two, ddI and ddC in 1991 and 1992, were designed — like other nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) — to work in the same manner as AZT. It’s not at all clear how the purported specific understanding of the viral replication cycle is supposed to have served to develop those drugs; but implying that certainly lends an impressive flourish to this just-so story of science at work.

That just-so story continues, “It rapidly became clear that the ability of HIV-1 to generate drug-resistant mutants meant that therapy would require a combination of agents affecting different proteins involved in viral replication (130, 131). . . . subsequent development was focused on the protease enzyme” [emphasis added]. Once again, “rapidly” makes the “science” appear more impressive than it was in practice, for it was a decade between AZT and the first protease inhibitors. The spurious claim is repeated, that “combination therapy . . . has dramatically increased the life expectancy of AIDS patients in developed countries”: as the death statistics plainly show, there has been no dramatic increase in the median age at which people die of “HIV disease” — “HAART saves lives — but doesn’t prolong them!?”, 17 September 2008; ”Virological response after starting HAART improved over calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a decrease in mortality” (Antiretroviral Therapy [ART] Cohort Collaboration, Lancet 368 [2006] 451–58) — in other words, HAART decreases “viral load” but doesn’t prolong lives, so “HIV” is irrelevant to clinical progression.

In this connection, the Nobel citation is subtly misleading when it says, “successful antiretroviral therapy results in life expectancies for persons with HIV infection now reaching similar levels to those of uninfected people” — of course, “successful” therapy does so, but there is apparently a great deal of UNsuccessful therapy: the majority of adverse events under HAART are “non-AIDS” events, i.e. iatrogenic, the “side” effects of therapy, namely, liver or kidney or heart failure (Treatment Guidelines, 29 January 2008, p. 13) . So it’s rather horrifying that “Currently, 3 million people are being treated with anti-retroviral drugs”; if the USA data from 1996 to 2004 are any guide, then these 3 million will die at an average age in the middle forties.

The Nobel citation also treats as proven fact the notion that the CCR5d32 deletion is protective, though that notion proved to be an illusion — “Racial disparities in testing “HIV-positive”: Is there a non-racist explanation?”, 4 May 2008.
Finally, the citation skates rather too lightly over the failure to generate a vaccine: “attempts to develop a protective vaccine
have been severely compromised by our incomplete understanding of HIV-1 protective immunity” should more accurately read, “researchers haven’t a clue as to what might provide protective immunity”.

The Conclusions are no better than the main text. “The discovery . . . made it possible to perform molecular cloning of HIV-1” — without ever having isolated an authentic virion of HIV! The triumphalism is simply not warranted by the facts: “unravelling of important details of its replication cycle and how the virus interacts with its host” — which is still not understood. Diagnostic tools followed “quickly . . . which has limited the spread of the pandemic” — not according to the continuing alarms emanating from UNAIDS and WHO about Africa; “unprecedented development of several classes of new antiviral drugs” — the first of which, AZT, killed (conservatively) 150,000 people, while the later ones have not extended life-spans; “we have gained remarkable insight into this new pandemic” — but don’t understand how “HIV” causes death of CD4 cells nor what might provide immunity, and we administer drugs that don’t extend lives and cause death by organ failure.



Every indication is that this was written carelessly, perhaps hurriedly, and without proper checking of the cited references. No matter why, it’s a shoddy piece.

23 Responses to “Nobel Prize Citation for “HIV” “Discovery”: Errors and Deficiencies”

  1. Michael said

    It was apparent from the very first two sentences that this “apology” would be propagandistic: “In 1981 a new serious medical syndrome was described in California and New York (69). The report identified clusters of previously healthy young men who suffered from different life threatening medical conditions previously not seen in this population”.

    The 1981 CDC MMWR Report that he cites also clearly stated: “The patients did not know each other and had no known common contacts or knowledge of sexual partners who had had similar illnesses. Two of the 5 reported having frequent homosexual contacts with various partners. All 5 reported using inhalant drugs, and 1 reported parenteral drug abuse.”

    And notice as well that only 3 of the 5 “original AIDS cases” had been designated as “previously healthy”!

  2. Martin said

    It’s funny that given the huge amount of time for the consideration and justification of a Nobel Prize, how shoddy their justification was. The Catholic Church better reasoned it’s justifications against Galileo than the Nobel Commitee.

  3. Andy said

    Isn’t it most distressing that the Committee of the most prestigious scientific award worldwide
    — claims apparent falsehoods
    — glosses over disturbing data and facts and
    — doesn’t even care to check references?

    Your assertions, Henry, can be scrutinized and found valid by virtually every scientific layperson without even digging deep into history and papers. The fairy-tales repeated by the Committee can be debunked quite easily. So why won’t the media dare report on the issue?

    I’ll leave the answer to Prof. Moore: “The evidence is so overwhelming that a credible scientist could not fail to understand and accept it. Would astrophysicists and geologists debate with people who believed the moon was made of green cheese?”

  4. Stefan R. said

    Thank you very much for reviewing the Nobel Prize Citation. For me as a layman it was impossible to make out the inconsistencies.

  5. Henry Bauer said


    I think Andy’s quote from Moore is one possible part of the explanation for the sloppiness of the Committee’s piece: The mainstream people do actually believe that “the evidence is so overwhelming” that there’s no need to find the best, soundest, most appropriate sources to cite. After all, who would raise any questions, it would only be nit-picking, nothing can change the basic fact that HIV cause AIDS…

  6. I think this Medicine Nobel give us a unique very good opportunity to put together all our efforts since more than 20 years in different countries. The 10 December world media will be in Stockholm for Nobel Prizes Ceremony. Why not to be us there with all our knowledge and experience?

    What about to organize in a Central Square (perhaps in the very popular Sergels Torg, close to the important Kulturhuset) in Stockholm (since, f. i., 20 th. November) an International Hunger Strike “No lobotomy new tragic Medicine Nobel Prize” (((or something better))) to stop delivering of Medicine Nobel the 10 th. December?

    It should be very important that several persons labeled “HIV-positive” or “AIDS case” coming from different countries participate together with other non-labeled persons. Some making the hunger strike and other explaining and acting. I spoke Swedish because I was political refugee in Stockholm 1975-77, and I hope my brain and my soul may recuperate it. But journalists, scientists and lot of people there speak fluently English. So no communication problem.

    It is important to prepare the contents of this central action not only writing letters to the Nobel Committee members but as I wrote in Comment 11 to NOBEL PRIZES for HIV and HPV: “We could send, from different countries in different languages, a lot of e-mails, letters, CDs, DVDs, books,…, to Professor Jan Andersson, with copy to (if possible all the members of)the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet, to the staff of Karolinska Institutet, to the Nobel Foundation, to important Swedish newspapers (specially Dagens Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet), to the Swedish government, … Invite everybody to do the same”. It is decisive not to remain closed in Dr. Andersson and the Nobel Committee but to go over it, obliging it to take responsibility in front of the Swedish and the world population.

    It is very important that Swedish media receive copy. It was Reporter Lena Nordlund who took the initiative to ask: “Do you think this will silence certain politicians, for example in South Africa and the like, or others that also have questioned the role of HIV in all this?”, obliging Professor Bjorn Vennstrom to answer something like “Yes, we hope it will quieten the conspiracy theorists and others that assert ideas that have nothing to do with research”, as Hugosw explained us in Comment 32.

    By the way, Hugo: I suppose you are living in Sweden, hopefully in Stockholm. May you do a list with important e-mail Swedish addresses to send copies? May you write (in Spanish?) directly to me at to talk on my proposal?

    In today The Lancet are appearing these related articles:
    The Lancet, Volume 372, Number 9647, 18 October 2008
    HIV discoverers awarded Nobel Prize for medicine
    Françoise Barré-Sinoussi: shares Nobel Prize for discovery of HIV
    Virologist wins Nobel for cervical cancer discovery
    Who should be the next Executive Director of UNAIDS?
    Advances in conspiracy theory

    Dr. Bauer: I ask for your permission to put this Comment in two Nobel Posts in order to reach more of your lectors. Thanks!

  7. Lucas said

    I don’t know if a Nobel citation is something particular, and if this is it. On the website, it is linked as “Advanced Information”.

    The Nobel Commitee is the working body of the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet. The document is signed by a specific author.

  8. Henry Bauer said


    Yes, that’s the link, thank you. I should have posted it in my critique. Stefan R. had sent it to me via e-mail.

  9. Lucas said

    I am not concerned with links, I am concerned with the formal status of this document. If you are indeed sure this is the official rationale, i.e. the “citation”, then I’m relieved. I’m pointing out the document is presented as merely some “Advanced Information”.

    Perhaps my point had been a bit clearer before the undisclosed redaction of my post.

    Lluís Botinas: hunger strikes are a bit problematic, shall I say, but a proper demonstration can be good.

  10. Henry Bauer said


    That link is to a document on the official Nobel website.

  11. Macdonald said

    In the interview with Vennstrom linked previously, he says the committee has researched the Nobel candidates more carefully than anyone can imagine. It seems Vennstrom has a rather poor opinion of people’s imaginations.

  12. Lucas: Thanks for your short answer to my proposal. But:

    A) What do you mean by “a proper demonstration” in order to stop the award of the Medicine Nobel Prize the 10th December?
    B) What do you mean by“hunger strikes are a bit problematic”? What kind of problems that we are not able to solve?

    Please, Lucas and others: I ask these questions very seriously because I propose a two-weeks hunger strike of some labeled and some non-labeled persons, together with a group of non-hunger strikers (coming from different countries) explaining, disseminating and acting in the Centrum of Stockholm (and in front of the Nobel Foundation, and perhaps at other places) as the most powerful instrument I know to REALLY stop the award. Of course, I have no guarantee of victory, but I think nobody has a guarantee of non-victory either… If there are other tools, I’m very interested to listen…

    I organized hunger strikes in front of the International Aids Conference at Geneva-1998 and Durban-2000. And I think these were good experiences to learn lessons to apply now in Stockholm.

    Thanks, Lucas, for your help to go deeper. We have 53 days to stop the awarding… with a lot of different kinds of actions. But which are more effective, and which are the most effective?

    Of course, but perhaps it is nevertheless necessary to explain: I wish to avoid the Medicine Nobel Prize being awarded on the 10th December not as a goal in itself but as a step –– perhaps a very important one — to dismantle the whole invention called AIDS. And so doing, to contribute to changing a lot of other things…

  13. Lucas said

    A significant number of people carrying relevant banners and signs, marching or standing, maybe shouting something intelligent, can draw attention and communicate their shared view effectively.

    Imagine at least a couple of hundred people holding signs saying just one thing: “HIV not necessary, not sufficient”. Maybe “HIV tests are in error” should be added. Well, maybe another one: “>150,000 therapy victims?”.

    Hunger strikes don’t impress me positively in general. Moreover, the cause here is health, so it is a clash. I don’t think hunger strikes incite people to respect the protesters. I suspect hunger-striking appear to many people (often, to me) as easy, abusive or irrational. I don’t think I want anybody to expect hunger striking from me, and I don’t expect it from anybody. I fear a number of people who can help, would — like me — not be too eager to associate themselves with such, perhaps, dubious actions.

  14. Hugosw said

    Lluis Botinas:
    I live in Sweden in a relatively small town some 200 km from Stockholm. I’m just an ordinary man that got pissed off by the obvious racism inherent in the HIV dogma, especially when talking about Africa. I worked one year as a voluntary doctor in Uganda in the early 80’s and came to love that country. Although there was a famine, people were very nice and welcoming. You didn’t need to invent a new disease to explain the sufferings of my patients. Malaria, TB, tapeworms and malnutrition was a huge part of the problem and I don’t expect it to have changed too much since then.
    I don’t know anybody that shares my views here at home and have no useful contacts.
    I agree with Lucas that hunger strikes are not that good in this case. It would alienate some people that would maybe participate in a less militant/extreme manifestation.
    As to getting anything published in the Swedish newspapers: I have tried many times, but never succeeded so far. I wasn’t even allowed to answer a call from our bishop for more “antivirals” to the African children in our local paper.
    I guess the only way to get anything published is to buy space for an advertisement in a paper, but I’m not even sure that that will do the trick.

  15. Sadun Kal said

    What about the opposite of hunger strikes; a demonstration where you eat perfectly healthy, organic fruits and vegetables and so on… It could be weird but interesting at the same time. I think it would be a nice way to demonstrate the relevance of nutrition in this AIDS issue. It’s not directly relevant to the Nobel Prize though, therefore can also be distracting, I’m not sure…

    Lluís Botinas:

    I mentioned your earlier suggestion (“We could send, from different countries in different languages, a lot of e-mails, letters, CDs, DVDs, books to the Nobel Committee”) to David Crowe (RA President). I also suggested that RA make an official statement addressing the Nobel Prize. He said he was busy with other projects but that he would be glad to officially support such efforts if someone takes the first step. So if anyone can start anything at all, that will be awesome.

    I personally don’t feel like I’m the right person to take such steps, while there are much more experienced and knowledgeable people out there. I wish these people were a little more motivated to act though.

    Either way, we really need to organize better, I think the Rethinkers — no offense — aren’t very good at that. 🙂 Just contact the RA directly if you get any concrete ideas or feel like you can get something going. Having some sort of leadership under tha RA “flag”, as an official guideline, would help us act much more smoothly.

    (Just as a side note: The website doesn’t seem to work as of now, for me at least. This would be a bad timing for the website to disappear…)

  16. Henry Bauer said

    Sadun Kal:

    The main difficulty is that so many Rethinkers really are very busy with other things, most of them have to spend time earning a living.

    My experience in various societies, as well as in academe, is that it’s not very productive to suggest that things be done if the suggester isn’t in a position to do them. Some months ago, for example, it was suggested that we have a major RA conference with invited speakers, media presence, etc. Fine: but who has the time and funds to arrange that? So nothing has happened.

  17. sadunkal said

    I know. That was just an observation, not a criticism . That “motivation” I’m talking about is dependent on many factors. We could use some more manpower simply…or money.

  18. Hugosw said

    I think it’s about time the “Gallo papers” are withdrawn. Janine Roberts’ book gives shocking evidence of that. Robert Gallo is obviously a mythomaniac.

  19. Edward Kamau said

    Lluís Botinas:
    Either way, we really need to organize better, I think the Rethinkers — no offense — aren’t very good at that. 🙂 Just contact the RA directly if you get any concrete ideas or feel like you can get something going. Having some sort of leadership under tha RA “flag”, as an official guideline, would help us act much more smoothly.

    Amen to that! But as HB says above, everybody is busy doing other things, including making a living. There are many good ideas out there but how to implement them? I don’t feel that going after the Nobel Committee will work though. They will never change their decision, certainly not over a 20-year controversy that in their opinion has been settled in favor of their laureate. Any press that comes out of this will be sure to portray the Rethinkers as a bunch of luddite nuts with a bad case of sour grapes.

    I believe that the Rethinker movement shoould avoid high-profile, frontal confrontations with the mainstream and instead focus on grass-roots work. Such work would take the form of local organising among small groups of Rethinkers. These groups can organise as local clubs and engage in activities such as book discussions (we have a great library of Rethinker books now), movie screenings and talks given by Rethinkers, long term HIV/AIDS survivors etc.

    Even if such groups begin with only 5 or less people, if they spread throughout the US and Europe, I believe they will have a bigger impact than the high-profile battles.

    The question of course is getting started. As HB says, we are all busy. I know I am but then this thing will not be turned around until we make some sacrifices.


  20. Oscarlena said

    Edward Kamau,

    I absolutely agree with you. What’s needed is a kind of a “grass-root revolution”. It’s not the Nobel folks getting poisoned, it’s the people. It’s they who have been ordered to die unless they swallow deadly “medicines”. And it’s they who have to stop swallowing. Not only to stop swallowing deadly drugs but first of all to stop swallowing deadly lies. It’s a decision every single human being has to make for him- or herself: to continue believing in lies (even or especially when those lies sound highly plausible) or to stop believing. Okay, when you stop believing, you’re all alone. But that’s better than being dead.

  21. Sadun Kal said

    One obstacle I recently had to notice is that people who are already affected by this whole AIDS thing are hurt so badly that they don’t want to hear anything related to it. Any discussion about AIDS directly triggers bad feelings in them and they react aggresively. And people whose lives were never affected by AIDS usually just don’t care about it… We should target the ones in between, I guess.

    I generalized a bit, obviously…

  22. Henry Bauer said

    Sadun Kal:

    It’s a huge question, and one has to generalize a bit. I’ll be writing at length about why people believe things that aren’t so, and why HIV/AIDS believers can’t see the facts.

  23. Dear all:

    Sorry for my absence: I must send my book to the publisher by 15 November and I’m very, very late (besides other kinds of problems: red, red economics, Plural-21,…).

    The question is not if I like hunger strikes and others don’t like them. (If necessary we could change HS for Fast; fasting is the most powerful detoxificant and regenerative method I know; pity that other hunger strikers don’t know it; we know). Nobody and nothing is accepted 100% for everybody. Anything has pros and cons.

    As previously: I think that strategically the most important action is to withdraw Gallo’s papers in Science, as I think David Crowe proposes, … and to put Gallo on trial, supporting Clark Baker and other initiatives. But I consider that tactically now the key point is this worldwide known Medicine Nobel Prize. We may start (or re-start) Gallo’s action on 11 December, after the Nobel action (I don’t say Montagnier’s action because we may act together with people refusing HPV vaccine business. It is the whole Medicine Nobel Prize to be stopped, not only half of it).

    The question is if, in order to overcome AIDS, it would be helpful to stop the delivering of the Medicine Nobel Prize on 10th December.

    If yes, then the next question is, which is the most effective instrument toward this goal?

    Being open to other proposals, the best I know up to now is a group of persons (¿5?) hunger-striking (specially if some have been for 10, 15, 20 years labeled as “HIV-positives” or as “AIDS cases”) supported by an other group of persons (¿5 more?) who know the “AIDS subject”, coming from different countries and disseminating every day a new Press Release explaining the meaning of the HS, its development and the new supporters reached world around day by day. These were some of my experiences in Geneva-1998 and Durban-2000. With two positives differences: now it is more days (15 instead of 6) and the goal is much more concrete and simple. And perhaps it could be an International Net of Hunger Strikes in different cities to support the central HS in Stockholm. This could have a multiplying effect in different countries, in Sweden and worldwide.

    5 + 5 since 25 November means (probably and at least) 10 + 20 the 1st December, 20 + 40 the 7th and then it will be possible to hold a demonstration the 9th, probably with more than 200 persons marching, for instance, under slogans like “No HIV isolation, No Nobel Prize”, “No new lobotomy Nobel Prize”, “AIDS industry worse than lobotomy”, etc. (or better).

    I think that only a demonstration (or one “Greenpeace spectacular action”) should be a symbolic protest action… not bad, of course, but qualitatively another kind of action and goal. And I think it should be much more difficult to organize only a demonstration in itself than the HS I propose with a final demonstration (and other related actions).

    Will this stop the awarding? I have no guarantee. But nobody has any guarantee of the contrary. And if anything might reach this objective, it is an International HS as well organized as possible.

    Of course, this HS being the impact component of a lot of other actions coming the world around: the scientific critical analysis of “Medicine Nobel Prize Advanced Information”, letters and documents to everybody important concerned, challenges to debate with Dr. Jan A. and the Nobel Committee and Assembly members, juridicial actions, etc. So it is very important to have the physical presence of the rigorous-critics-dissident scientists (beginning by the closest one: Ready to travel to Stockholm, Henry?), doctors, journalists, lawyers, labeled persons, associations,…

    As all you know, AIDS is a first in the history of Science and Medicine in many negative ways. Why should not AIDS be the first positive time a Nobel Prize is withdrawn?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: