HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2013/02/16

Those who don’t accept that HIV has been proven to be the cause of AIDS are nowadays labeled “denialists” — as a substitute for answering their arguments and the evidence they point to.

The same has happened to people who do not accept that it has been  proven that human-caused emission of carbon dioxide appreciably adds to global warming.

In many fields of science and medicine, a mainstream consensus has become dogma, and dissenters are treated as heretics to be professionally excommunicated (Dogmatism  in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth, McFarland 2012)

It is worth pointing out that it is the so-called “denialists” who exemplify the skeptical conservatism that was a traditional safeguard of reliability, whereas the mainstream bandwagons of HIV/AIDS theory and human-caused-global-warming theory gained hegemony long before convincing evidence was at hand.

The media have failed dismally by not pointing out that the “denialists” are actually doing what scientists are supposed to do and that they comprise a large number of highly qualified and accomplished people with substantial credentials in pertinent disciplines; see “Denialism” — Who are the “denialists”?

4 Responses to “Denialism”

  1. James said

    I recommend everyone reads this book to see how fascism is alive and well in the “liberal” west.

    Sounds too whacky to even consider looking at that book? Then look at these brief historical documents on Wikipedia. Anyone who looks at the Fascist manifesto or the National Socialist’s 25 Theses will see that these were seen as “progressive” movements in the 1920s and 1930s (most of their policies are still seen as progressive). By our society refusing to discuss this and recognise this, the tyrannical components of fascist progressivism have manage to continue to contaminate our society. Some de-nazification happened in post-war Germany; de-fascification never happened.

    Iatrogenic genocide has been practised on gay men and black people in the last 30 years. That’s not to say that those responsible were doing this intentionally, but the fascism of those involved has meant they have refused all criticism of what has gone on. As far as they are concerned, they are on the side of progressivism and thus cannot be wrong.

    When I take part in discussions on various websites with “progressives” and provide proof to show that what they are claiming is false, when they cannot refute my evidence, they wait a few days, then quietly delete the evidence. A few months later, I see them saying “there is no evidence for x”.

    Knowledge cannot grow without criticism and critical thought. And fascism and totalitarianism does away with any divergent thought.

    • Henry Bauer said

      I agree to the extent that the authoritarian excesses of political correctness might be seen as excesses of left-wing-ness; for my critiques of specific instances of that in academe, see Virginia Scholar.
      But sweeping generalizations like Goldberg’s need caveats. I think it’s necessary on every social issue to consider the degree to which the public good might benefit from restrictions on personal freedom. I favor strict laws and enforcement of them on drunk driving, for example, but do not favor restrictions on speech or publication except in the most extreme situations.
      Fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany did indeed gain control by initially appealing to socialist ideas, but Hitler’s access to power was also aided by support from industrialists and conservatives.
      Authoritarian governments can directly restrict freedom. Lack of government indirectly restricts the freedom of most people because control is exercised by impersonal free-market forces and oligarchs and criminals.
      Compromises among reasonable people who respect evidence seems the best approach, unfortunately there’s currently a dearth of reasonable people in influential positions.

      • Guy said

        I’m a bit surprised to see a discussion of Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” on an AIDs site, but it is one of my favorite books and I am currently re-reading it. I will be on the lookout for “sweeping generalizations”. I did not notice them the first time through.

      • Henry Bauer said

        I think labels like “fascist” (etc. etc.) amount to generalizations because they infer that since one aspect of a person or group can be so labeled, therefore one expects other aspects to be similarly to be labeled.
        But I do recognize that it is virtually impossible to write anything if one has to put in caveats everywhere.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: