“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”.