None so blind as those who WILL not see
Posted by Henry Bauer on 2011/06/26
The mainstream HIV/AIDS literature is replete with evidence that HIV/AIDS theory is wrong. Here’s a nice selection made by R. Crumb and obtained courtesy of Martin Barnes, from HIV and the Pathogenesis of AIDS by Jay Levy (3rd ed., 2007). Levy is one of the elders and gurus of HIV/AIDS matters, and he even claims to be a co-discoverer of HIV. Moreover, that his text is in its 3rd edition indicates that it has found favor among his peers. Yet it acknowledges as clearly as can be that there is actually no genuine evidence that HIV caused AIDS then or causes AIDS now:
A central point is the “Unresolved Mystery” of CD4 cell loss (p. 327)
“What causes a decrease in IL-2 (CD8 cell anti-viral factor) production is not known” (331)
“The process leading to a reduction in anti-HIV immune responses, mirrored by the loss of CD4 cells and CD8 cell responses, are not yet well defined. Most likely, multiple factors are involved in CD4 cell loss” (328)
“[R]elatively few infected cells show sufficient virus replication that would lead to cell death” (329)
“The exact mechanism toward CD4 cell depletion and immune deficiency are not yet well defined, and its cellular latency, as well as several other features of HIV infection, remain mysterious” (429)
“The mechanism for anti-body mediated neutralization of HIV has not yet been well-defined” (239)
“The clinical relevance of neutralizing antibodies remains unclear” (246)
“Why certain laboratory strains (of HIV) passaged for months or years in vitro, are very sensitive to neutralization by a variety of heterologous sera is not clear” (240)
“[T]he true nature of the envelope structure of an infectious virion has not been resolved” (10)
“Studies with individual HIV isolates may not provide the correct conclusions relating to in vivo pathogenesis” (328)
“The reasons for this disconnect between viral load and CD4 cell count are not known” (333)
“Thus, how, where, and when HIV emerged in human populations and existed in various groups and clades are not clearly evident” (21)
“While current anti-viral drugs have had substantial effects on HIV infection and development of disease, the side effects can be very harmful to the infected individual. These include abnormalities in body fat distribution and in lipid and glucose metabolism, cardiac disease, and pancreatic, liver, and kidney disorders” (381)
CONCLUSIONS: “Encouraging progress has been made in understanding the pathogenesis of HIV infection…Nevertheless, the path toward eventual control of HIV still requires major efforts toward immune restoration and the development of an effective vaccine” (429)
That last statement is quite typical. The details in the text make plain that nothing is understood about how HIV is supposed to kill off the immune system and cause AIDS. But those who believe in their bones that HIV causes AIDS can only repeat over and over again, “Much is known but more needs to be understood”; Fauci, for one, says that almost routinely. What exactly it is that’s known is never specified, however.
As always, it’s quite difficult to resist the emotional impulse to interpret the sorry state of affairs in terms of deliberate hoodwinking of the public by the experts and insiders. But there is a more plausible albeit complicated interpretation that’s based solidly in the history and sociology of science. Recognize that the vast majority of HIV/AIDS researchers are engaged in excruciatingly specialized studies of intricate details, based unthinkingly on the accepted dogma. No one who enters HIV/AIDS research has the slightest doubt about it. Therefore when conundrums are encountered, they are regarded as challenges and reasons for further research, not as potential falsification of the fundamental premise. This may be particularly so with those like Jay Levy who have been in the field since its beginning and whose careers are inseparable from HIV/AIDS theory.
It’s not that these people willfully ignore evidence, it’s that they are incapable of appreciating its significance because their mindset makes it literally inconceivable; it’s an illustration of the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, by which our minds guard themselves against threats to our beliefs.
It follows that Rethinking cannot reasonably aim to change the minds of the HIV/AIDS research establishment: those will be the very last people to admit the truth. Change must be forced from the outside, by those who make public policy and feed the funding of research, treatment, and ancillary public activities. One tiny silver lining in the pervasively gloomy global economic clouds may be that some politicians might become willing to listen to claims that tens of billions of dollars are being wasted annually in pursuit of a non-existent entity that causes an invented disease.
The insight that “none are so blind as those who will not see” has been traced back as far as the 16th century. Answers.com cites, apparently from the Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs:
Who is so deafe, or so blynde, as is hee, That willfully will nother here nor see [1546 J. Heywood Dialogue of Proverbs ii. ix. K4]
There is no manne so blynd as he that will not see, nor so dull as he that wyll not vnderstande [1551 Cranmer Answer to Gardiner 58]
My Wordsworth Dictionary of Proverbs (ed. G. L. Apperson, 1993) also gives, from 1547, Borde’s Breviary of Helthe
Concepts like this were doubtless known well before they could be traced in written records. For a delightful as well as informative illustration, see Robert Merton’s On the Shoulders of Giants.