More innocent victims of HIV/AIDS witch-hunt mania

It’s been known for more than a couple of decades that a positive “HIV” test can result from dozens of conditions, some of them diseases, others not — section 3.2.2 in The Case against HIV.

At least, it’s been known to people who are familiar with the peer-reviewed literature. That doesn’t include huge swaths of health-care-associated people and institutions. So when someone tests “HIV-positive”, the ignorant conclusion is almost invariably drawn that the unfortunate “HIV-positive” person has been infected in some way; and if sexual intercourse seems impossible, then it must be through dirty needles — even though peer-reviewed studies have shown that using fresh needles conduces to more prevalence of “HIV-positive”, not less (section 3.3.8 in The Case against HIV).

Innumerable absurdities have damaged innumerable individuals and groups because “HIV-positive” is taken as proof of infection: an 18-month-old baby is infected despite the absence of all possible modes of infection (Immaculate infection by HIV). I’ve noted many other absurdities (159 posts are currently in the “HIV absurdities” category on this blog), for example Spontaneously generated HIV; Youngest person sexually infected with HIV? How are pre-teens infected?; World AIDS Day: Black Stars and “life-saving” HAART; Spontaneous generation of “HIV”.

A striking example has just been reported by the Sydney Morning Herald:
“A four-year-old girl is the latest of more than 200 residents of a remote Cambodian village who have tested positive for HIV, baffling health officials. . . .
more than 200 of the 1700 people . . . have tested positive for HIV since testing began early in December. Residents panicked and rushed to be tested after a 74-year-old man inexplicably tested positive . . . . [and] two women aged 81 and 83 . . . .
all possible causes of HIV transmission were being considered
[but of course none of the many possible causes NOT resulting from “transmission”; after all, some quite common infections like flu, tuberculosis, malaria, can conduce to positive “HIV” tests; so can some vaccinations, very pertinent when “HIV” infection via needles is being alleged]
. . . Cambodian officials have pointed the finger at an unlicensed Cambodian doctor who has admitted re-using needles and syringes on patients. . . .
Cambodian authorities have charged the unlicensed doctor Yem Chhrin, 55, who had practised in the commune for 21 years, with committing murder with a ‘cruel act’. He faces a sentence of life imprisonment if convicted.”

Cambodia, and especially Yem Chhrin, badly need a branch of Clark Baker’s Office of Medical and Scientific Justice.

HIV/AIDS ”denialism” is reasonable, according to independent observers

“Contrary to the widespread public health depiction of AIDS denialists as totally irrational, our study suggests that some of those who become AIDS denialists have sufficiently reasonable grounds to suspect that ‘something is wrong’ with scientific theory, because their personal experience contradicts the unitary picture of AIDS disease progression. Odd and inexplicable practices of some AIDS centers only fuel these people’s suspicions. We can conclude that public health practitioners’ practices may play a role in generating AIDS-denialist sentiments.”

I would add that it may be personal experience of the mainstream HIV/AIDS literature, not only personal health experience, that reveals “something is wrong” with HIV/AIDS theory. Certainly that’s my own story, see The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, The Case against HIV, and “CONFESSION OF AN ‘AIDS DENIALIST’: How I became a crank because we’re being lied to about HIV/AIDS”.

And it is indeed true that “public health . . . practices” can drive people to disbelieve the official shibboleths as it becomes clear that officialdom either doesn’t know what it’s about or is deliberately lying, for example about antiretroviral drugs making a normal lifespan with normal health feasible.

But I would refrain from describing HIV/AIDS theory as “scientific”. Perhaps that’s more a question of linguistics rather than substance, though, because the quotation above comes from Russians writing in English: “An AIDS-Denialist Online Community on a Russian Social Networking Service: Patterns of Interactions With Newcomers and Rhetorical Strategies of Persuasion”.

This article (thanks to Joan Shenton for telling us about it) is significant because it represents the findings of people who are not heavily vested in the orthodox view: their careers do not depend on it. Their interest is sociological and psychological. They begin with no doubt about HIV/AIDS theory, and do not say that they have come to disbelieve it, but in studying how “denialists” try to spread their message, these independent and disinterested scholars realized that “denialism” rests on “reasonable grounds”.

These Russian social scientists have in a small way done what a number of journalists did in the earlier days of HIV/AIDS dogma. Starting purely with the aim of covering the prominent story of HIV/AIDS, a number of investigative reporters found themselves forced by the facts to realize “something is wrong” with the HIV/AIDS hypothesis; and they became “denialists”. The honor roll of these journalist truth-seekers includes Jad Adams (AIDS: The HIV Myth, St. Martin’s Press, 1989), John Crewdson (Science Fictions: A Scientific Mystery, a Massive Cover-Up, and the Dark Legacy of Robert Gallo, Little, Brown, 2002), Celia Farber (Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS, Melville House, 2006), Neville Hodgkinson (Aids: The Failure of Contemporary Science: How a Virus That Never Was Deceived the World, Fourth Estate, 1996), Evan Lambrou (AIDS: Scare or Scam?, Vantage Press, 1994), John Lauritsen, Michael Leitner (Mythos HIV: Eine kritische Analyse der AIDS-Hysterie, Verlag videel OHG [Niebüll], 2000 — trans. Mythical HIV: A Critical Analysis of AIDS Hysteria), Joan Shenton (Positively False: Exposing the Myths around HIV and AIDS, I. B. Tauris, 1998; re-issued with new material, 2015); and I would give a mention also to Bruce Nussbaum (Good Intentions: How Big Business and the Medical Establishment Are Corrupting the Fight against AIDS, Atlantic Monthly Press, 1900), who did not question HIV/AIDS theory but who revealed why one would not want to believe Fauci, Gallo, or Big Pharma about anything at all.

The Vienna Conference had shown several years ago that unbiased journalists find that we “denialists” are rational people with a strong case; perhaps coincidentally, it was Russian journalism then also: “From Vienna”; “Vienna Conference program, talks, TV coverage”.

Physicians and “scientists” who “learn” about HIV/AIDS are not forced to consider the overwhelming evidence against what they are taught; and normal human cognitive dissonance makes it difficult if not impossible for them to see the evidence after they have been indoctrinated. But when intelligent truth-seekers without conflicts of interest look closely into the stories of HIV and of AIDS, they invariably come to the same conclusion: “HIV” has never been shown to cause “AIDS”.