HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

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

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/12/06

“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”.

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

  1. Excellent.

  2. HIV is the most essential vitamin of all said

    “But I would refrain from describing HIV/AIDS theory as “scientific”. Perhaps that’s more a question of linguistics rather than substance, though”

    Wrong and wrong again. An example of a non-scientific theory is “God made us because he was bored with playing chess with himself”. Scientific theories can range from the most excellent to the most trashy rubbish. They have in common that they relate to putative facts which could at least notionally be proven true or false. Hiv-aids is scientific precisely because it can be proven false. Even “praying can cure cancer” is a scientific theory because you can carry out a study which gives evidence of whether or not it is true.

  3. HIV is the most essential vitamin of all said

    Another example of a theory which is scientific even though it includes God is “God makes all the world’s windows 7 systems crash on Friday mornings because he hates Bill Gates for being so greedy”. It can easily be shown to be false.

    There is not a clear boundary distinction in science or theorising between the known true and the known false. So catagorical labels such as “not scientific” are inappropriate. Rather one should say competent science and defective science. Arguably the latter includes what could be called pseudoscience. Which is science but pseudo-honest or pseudo-competent. In certain spheres the “scientists” tell whopping lies (rather than conduct genuine non-pseudo research) and then their work can best be labelled as pseudo- science, or pseudoscience for short.

  4. CJ said

    There’s something wrong with it alright. Because they look at it as an inevitable epic fail of the immune system. I’m living proof that immune dysfunction can be reversed. I’m down to taking the ARV’s every other day once a day but take LDN and alpha lipoic acid and supplements daily. I had Non Hodgkins Lymphoma too and an AIDS diagnosis within one year. I’ve gained about 45 pounds and am back at work. I really didn’t notice a change in certain problems I had and in my blood work until I started taking the LDN. I go to the HIV doc to keep the insurance happy, and take them every other day for now. But the main point is, the picture they paint of why and how and how long you’ll go through a decline in health is short-sighted and not conclusive or inclusive enough. I have to thank Noreen Martin. Her story prodded me to trust my instincts about all of this. Doing well (knock wood) and hope to continue to do so.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Very best wishes!

    • Henry Bauer said

      HIV is….:
      People define “science” and “scientific” in umpteen ways. I said “I would refrain from describing HIV/AIDS theory as ‘scientific’” — and that’s a view I’m sticking with. The theory grew out of presumption and speculation without benefit of good evidence.

      • HIV is the most essential vitamin of all said

        Actually Henry I too would avoid describing hiv-aids as “scientific” because most people would assume it to mean supported by evidence and rationality. I was more thinking of what the proper terminology should be rather than what pragmatic terminology is best for a sloppy population audience.
        An alternative conception is that you were there saying of not describing *the theory* as scientific. I’d say the theory is scientific (a theory cannot be fraudulent or biased) but its rational/evidential basis is full of holes and thus hardly deserving of crediting as scientific. In any case what’s the point of trying to persuade a denialist ;~]-. “Here be monsters” Arrgghh!!

  5. lukas said

    I personally don’t give a penny that hiv causes aids for this reason.It comes out from a man that used to say that htlv caused leukemia.Then i checked the number and i saw that only 1 % female and 7% male in japan that were htlv positive developed leukemia(probably no control group),and it sounded to me quite coincidental and ridiculous.Add that most people developed leukemia in older age,give 30 years latent period power to the htlv and the game is done.For hiv i have never seen papers that show evidence that hiv may cause cervical cancer,linphoma,kaposi etc.If we state that htlv cause the same diseases that we attribuite to hiv we would immediately catch more patients with it and raise that percentuages and make htlv the star.It’s not neither a valid theory nor an invalid,it’s only matter of playing with numbers and correlation.

  6. Brian said

    “But when intelligent truth-seekers without conflicts of interest look closely…”

    Most might think conflicts of interest pertains primarily in the medical realm. That’s true, but just think lower down the level of delusion.

    Most every self-respecting gay man and their admirers have by no doubt adopted an intelligent truth-seeking ability. It’s a conflict of interest to see otherwise, whereas suggesting they move out of the 80’s and 90’s does absolutely no good.

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: