HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Posts Tagged ‘Maria Papagiannidou’

Drug non-adherence, imaginary epidemics, and sexual nonsense

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/08/30

How many don’t take their antiretroviral drugs?
After I had commented on the decrease in “HIV” in Washington, DC, that had been described in the media as an alarming increase [STOP PRESS: 40% DECREASE in HIV in Washington DC, 18 March 2009], I received from Dr. Stephen S. Elgin, MD, a clipping from the Washington Times (Christopher A. Keys, “The need for electronic records”, 14 April 2009) containing this fascinating item:
“In any given month, about 40 percent of the approximately 1,900 clients actively enrolled in the D.C. AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) are not utilizing antiretroviral medications. . . . [although] almost all of these ‘nonutilizers’ have active prescriptions for antiretroviral drugs written by their physicians, nurse practitioners or physician’s assistants. . . . ADAP programs across the country report similar rates of ‘nonutilizers’ (about 40 percent).”

A reasonable inference is that a considerable proportion of those who are placed on antiretroviral drugs have similar experiences of being unable to tolerate the drugs’ toxicities as, for example, Onnie Mary PhutheKarri Stokely, or Maria Papagiannidou.

Official: Antiretrovirals maybe not the best treatment
Updated HIV guidelines emphasise primary care need of patients
“While improvements in antiretroviral therapy have improved the prognosis for many HIV patients, data from recent studies suggest those living with HIV are at higher risk for developing common health problems, such as heart disease, diabetes or cancer”
— but those are not “common” for adults in prime middle age, which is the age at which HAART-treated individuals are dying from heart failure, kidney failure, liver failure, and certain cancers [“AIDS” deaths: owing to antiretroviral drugs or to lack of antiretroviral treatment?, 2 October 2008; NIH Treatment Guidelines, 3 November 2008].
“Baseline urinalysis and calculated creatinine clearance should be considered, especially in black patients, because of an increased risk of HIV-associated nephropathy”
“HIV-associated nephropathy” is actually iatrogenic, drug-induced nephropathy occurring in “HIV-positive” people who are on HAART; which is admitted, but only  indirectly:
“Urinalysis and calculated creatinine clearance should also be performed prior to initiating treatment with drugs such as tenofovir or indinavir, which have the potential for nephrotoxicity”
“potential” for nephrotoxicity sounds much less alarming than a straightforward description as nephrotoxic.
“Emphasis should be placed on the importance of adherence to care rather than focusing solely on adherence to medications”
because HAART itself can cause a variety of ailments.

Asian “epidemics”
There will never be epidemics of heterosexually transmitted “HIV” outside Africa, according to the head of the HIV/AIDS Division of the World Health Organization [WHO SAYS that WE’VE BEEN VERY WRONG about HIV and AIDS? (Clue: WHO = World Health Organization), 10 June 2008]. But of course that is no reason why UNAIDS should cease fearmongering over those imaginary epidemics, which have the added implausible feature that the greatest risk of acquiring “HIV” is through getting married [Abstinence-based HIV programs in Africa may put married women at risk, 25 September 2008; B***S*** about HIV from ACADEME via THE PRESS, 4 March 2008; HIV/AIDS ABSURDITIES AND WORSE, 9 DECEMBER 2007; TO AVOID HIV INFECTION, DON’T GET MARRIED, 18 November 2007]:

“In Cambodia, India and Thailand, the largest number of new HIV infections occur among married women, the study showed”. That’s from a UNAIDS report released in Bali at the 9th International Congress on AIDS in Asia and the Pacific.
Here’s the “reasoning”:
“50 million women in Asia are either married or in long-term relationships with men who engage in high-risk sexual behaviours and are at risk of being infected with HIV from their partners. . . . Men who buy sex constitute the largest infected population group and most of them are either married or will get married . . . . ‘This puts a significant number of women, often perceived as “low-risk” because they only have sex with their husbands or long-term partners, at risk of HIV infection’. . . . UNAIDS estimated over 90 per cent of the 1.7 million women living with HIV in Asia became infected from their husbands or partners while in long-term relationships.”
But those “risk factors” are nothing new, yet more than two decades of “HIV/AIDS” have not resulted in any Asian epidemics. UNAIDS is speculating and making predictions that have already been disproved by the facts.

More marriage and “HIV” risk….
Since the greatest risk of being “HIV-positive” occurs among married women in Africa and Asia, it’s logical (HIV/AIDS logical) that  “Nigeria agency pushes marriage to control HIV spread” .
That’s actually not as absurd as it may seem, for “Both bride and groom are HIV-positive and marrying with the support of a local government program that encourages such ‘HIV-marriages’ in the hope of preventing the virus from spreading”.
Of course that’s a forlorn hope, because we know from James Chin, former epidemiologist for the World Health Organization, that the reason why “HIV” has spread so much in Africa is that 20-40% of the adult population — including, obviously, a lot of married people — is continually engaged in multiple concurrent sexual relationships with constant changing of partners (The AIDS Pandemic).
If married people are NOT so engaged, then the UNAIDS-certified African epidemic could not have happened. If married people ARE so engaged, then this new initiative is nonsense.
Not the first time that left and right hands of “HIV/AIDS” don’t jibe.

Prisons are hotbeds of men having sex with men and spreading “HIV”
Everyone knows that, even though the facts are otherwise [Recent HIV/AIDS tidbits in the “news”, 6 April 2009; AIDS activists spout b***s***; media pass it on, 3 April 2009; “HIV” IN PRISONS: REGULAR AS CLOCKWORK, 2 May 2008].
So the experience in Alabama prisons won’t change “what everyone knows” and what HIV/AIDS spokespeople will continue to blather about:
“in Alabama in-prison transmission is all but non-existent . . . . HIV is, of course, a serious health concern” [“Prisons’ HIV decision shows progress”]
— and no one would dare mention the lack of spread in prisons publicly without paying obeisance to this belief about a serious health concern.
“However, as has gradually become widely understood, it [“HIV”] is not easily transmitted”
— gradually understood, that is, by officialdom; AIDS Rethinkers and HIV Skeptics knew it all along.
“Given that, the rules barring HIV-positive inmates from work-release programs ceased to make sense”
— but it’s probably asking too much to have all such senseless rules abandoned; say, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” . . . .
“As of last week, [Prison Commissioner Richard] Allen said, two of the 17 female HIV-positive inmates at Tutwiler Prison have passed the classification requirements, as have 47 of the 252 men in the HIV ward at Limestone Prison. ‘I don’t see it as a big deal,’ Allen said. . . . But it is a big deal . . . . By recognizing the medical realities of HIV and adjusting its policies accordingly, the department is making a significant statement.”
— a significant statement whose implications the HIV/AIDS bandwagon will continue to ignore assiduously.

CDC recommends mandatory HIV testing…without consent
In an effort to slow the spread of HIV, the CDC is recommending mandatory testing of emergency room patients without their consent”.
— which is GUARANTEED to result in some alarming statistics about the occult spread of “HIV” and the unexpectedly large proportion of people who are infected without knowing it, because from the very earliest days of sentinel surveying, it has been abundantly clear that emergency-room patients and people who have just died tend to test “HIV-positive” at very high rates [see sources cited at pp. 48 and 85 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory].

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, HIV absurdities, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV transmission, HIV/AIDS numbers, Legal aspects, sexual transmission, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Another woman survives antiretroviral drugs

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/08/09

Onnie Mary Phuthe is a young Botswana woman who realized the harm that antiretroviral drugs were doing her, stopped taking them, and has regained her health. She forwarded an e-mail she had sent Anthony Brink, to be used publicly ad lib. She had attached copies of her lab reports and prescription history, confirming that she stopped filling the prescriptions.

Onnie has only dial-up Internet service, so blogging is slow and difficult for her; but her strength of character comes clearly through her own words (below, unedited):

“True I want to share the evidence of what the eqivalent to the rat poison did to me it is documented. Feel free to use these any way you see fit. I was on the following treatments to address MY HIV TYPE 1 AND HIV TYPE 2 POSITIVE RESULTS
1st set of arv I took for 6 weeks ( mid aug 2001)
http://www.aidsmeds.com/archive/Sustiva_1615.shtml
http://www.aidsmeds.com/archive/Zerit_1588.shtml
http://www.aidsmeds.com/archive/Videx_1585.shtml
second set in mid August 2001 until feb 2008
http://www.aidsmeds.com/archive/Viramune_1616.shtml
http://www.aidsmeds.com/archive/Combivir_1083.shtml
feb 2008 to 16/10/2008
http://www.aidsmeds.com/archive/Viramune_1616.shtml
http://www.aidsmeds.com/archive/Epivir_1579.shtml
http://www.aidsmeds.com/archive/Viread_1587.shtml
16/10/2008 – 16/06/2009
http://www.aidsmeds.com/archive/Viramune_1616.shtml
http://www.aidsmeds.com/archive/Truvada_1584.shtml

If I die from not taking th arv is far btter for m to accept since the argony and pain sufferering has stopped since I stopped the arv. I have not done any hiv monitoring tests yet, and I will not do them. The peace I have now is more superior that the drugs and follow up that I would need to go throw. This is the basis I have resigned form beong a board mmber of Botswana Network of People Living with HIV and AIDS. I CAN NOT ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO BE ON ARV. IT HAS NOT WORKD FOR ME.  IT MAKES ME FEEL GUILTY OF MURDER TO EVEN SUGGEST THE ARV THERAPY.
I MAY BE CALLED MAD OR ANYTHING , BUT ONE THING THEY ALL CALL ME NOW IS YOU LOOK VERY HEALTH NOW, I DON’T USED MY\ MEDICAL AID, I DO NOT GO TO THE HOSPITAL UNECESSARILY SINCE I AM AWARE OF THE BODY CORRESPONDENCES IT MAKES WITH ME. I NOW ADHERE TO MY BODY’S CORRESPONDNCES THAN TO THE DRUG PUSHERS, RESULT IS GOOD GENERAL BODY AND MENTAL HEALTH, PURE SLEEP. AMEN

I HAVE BEN SUMMONED BY THE CLINIC TO COME EXPLAIN WHY I DON’T COME FOR APPOINTMENTS. I REPLIED I DON’T US THE SERVICES ANY MORE THEN THEY SAY I MUST TELL IT TO THE DOCTOR.  THE DOCTOR IS AWARE , IT TOLD THEM ALL THE TIME BEFORE I FINALLY STOPPED ARV.

IT  SHOWS ON THE INCONSISTANCY OF THE ARV REFILLS THAT I REALISED THE BAD EFFECTS OF THE ARV DRUGS PERSONALLY.”

Onnie has also joined Facebook and gives more details there, as well as on a blog .

****************

Joyce Ann Hafford died in pregnancy during a clinical trial of antiretroviral drugs. The very purpose of that trial sickens me: “to compare the ‘treatment-limiting toxicities’ of two anti-HIV drug regimens” (Celia Farber, “Out of Control: AIDS and the corruption of medical science”, Harper’s Magazine, March 2006, 37-52). In other words, find the highest dosage that doesn’t kill. To gauge and compare toxicities, of course one has to explore regions where the toxicity is appreciable. It seems obvious that the risk of death in such a trial has to be appreciable.

****************

Quite often I wonder how many others have suffered Joyce Hafford’s fate, or barely avoided it. It’s impossible to know, because it is so easy to write off the death of anyone being “treated” for HIV/AIDS as death owing to HIV/AIDS and not to the “medications” — even as it is acknowledged that more than half of the “serious adverse events” occurring in HAART-treated people are owing to the drugs and not to AIDS (NIH Treatment Guidelines,  November 2008, p. 21); and the average age of death of confirmed HIV/AIDS-theory-believing activists, who surely “comply” better than most with their “treatment” regimens, is tragically low, in the 40s for the men and at age 50 for the women [“AIDS” deaths: owing to antiretroviral drugs or to lack of antiretroviral treatment?, 2 October 2008].

Quite often I wonder how many other healthy women have been subjected to the same sort of ordeal that Onnie experienced for years and managed to survive. We know of Kim Bannon, Maria Papagiannidou, Audrey Serrano, Karri Stokely.
Noreen Martin rejected antiretroviral drugs from the beginning, and provides information about the benefits of low-dose naltrexone as an immune-system booster.

Just after my book was published, I received an e-mail from a lady who wanted to meet and talk about it. She had had surgery for uterine cancer, was told she was “HIV-positive”, and was put on antiretroviral drugs. She remained in hospital for 6 months owing to various drug side-effects, and finally decided to stop taking the pills. Her health recovered, but she continued to wonder whether she should try those drugs again. A friend told her of my book, and she wanted to meet the author to gauge his trustworthiness. I judged her to be in her thirties.

***************

How many more women will experience these emotional and physical devastations before the absurdities of HIV/AIDS theory bring it down?

How many more men, of whom there are surely a far greater number, given the HIV/AIDS preoccupation with gay men and their apparent propensity to test “HIV-positive” so often? It was an enlightening and emotionally difficult experience for me last April, at the meeting Brian Carter organized of Alive-&-Well people in Los Angeles, to see these intelligent, evidently healthy “HIV-positive” men wrestling with the perpetual quandary of whether to believe their own experience and those of their friends or to follow the advice of their physicians.

And what will the many physicians do, who have been in all good faith prescribing these toxic drugs, when they have to accept that they killed their patients by believing what the leading gurus and official institutions of medical science had been telling them?

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, clinical trials, experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, HIV tests, HIV/AIDS numbers | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 28 Comments »

Believing and disbelieving

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/07/03

(This is a long post. HERE is a pdf for those who prefer to read it that way).

“How could anyone believe that?” is a natural question whenever someone believes what is contrary to the conventional wisdom, say, that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, or that Loch Ness monsters are real animals.

Since the role of unorthodox views in and out of science has been the focus of my academic interests for several decades, I had to think about that question in a variety of contexts. My conclusion long ago was that this is the wrong question, the very opposite of the right question, which is,

“How does anyone ever come to believe differently than others do?” (1)

********************

It’s a widespread illusion that we believe things because they’re true. It’s an illusion that we all tend to harbor about ourselves. Of course I believe what’s true! My beliefs aren’t wrong! It’s the others who are wrong.

However, we don’t acquire beliefs because they’re true, we acquire them through being taught that they’re true. For the first half-a-dozen or a dozen years of our lives, before we have begun to learn how to think truly for ourselves, as babies and children we almost always believe what parents and teachers tell us. Surely that has helped the species to survive. But no matter what the reason might be, there’s ample empirical evidence for it. For instance, many people during their whole lifetime stick to the religion that they imbibed almost with mother’s milk; those who reject that religion do so at earliest in adolescence.

That habit of believing parents and teachers tends to become ingrained. Society’s “experts”  — scientists and doctors, surrogate parents and teachers — tend to be believed as a matter of habit.

So how do some people ever come to believe other than what they’ve been taught and what the experts say?

**********************

I was prompted to this train of thought by receiving yet again some comments intended for this blog and which were directed at minor details, from people whom I had asked, long ago, to cut through this underbrush and address the chief point at issue: “What is the proof that HIV causes AIDS?”

Whenever I’ve asked this of commentators like Fulano-etc.-de-Tal, or Chris Noble, or Snout, or others who want to argue incessantly about ancillary details, the exchange has come to an end. They’ve simply never addressed that central issue.

And it’s not only these camp followers. The same holds for the actual HIV/AIDS gurus, the Montagniers and Gallos and Faucis. Fauci threatens journalists who don’t toe the orthodox line. Gallo hangs up on Gary Null when asked for citations to the work that made him famous.

Why can’t these people cite the work on which their belief is supposedly based?

Finally it hit me: Because their belief wasn’t formed that way. They didn’t come to believe because of the evidence.
The Faucis and Gallos came to believe because they wanted to, because a virus-caused AIDS would be in their professional bailiwick, and they were more than happy to take an imperfect correlation as proof of causation.
The camp followers came to believe simply because they were happy to believe what the experts say and what “everyone else” believes. Who are they to question the authority of scientific experts and scientific institutions?

***********************

To question “what everyone knows”, there has to be some decisive incentive or some serendipitous conjunction. I’ll illustrate that by describing how I came to believe some things that “everyone else” believes and some things that “everyone else” does not believe.

The first unorthodox opinion I acquired was that Loch Ness monsters are probably real living animals of some unidentified species. How did I come to that conclusion?
Serendipity set the stage. Reading has been my lifelong pleasure. I used to browse in the local library among books that had just been returned and not yet reshelved, assuming that these would be the most interesting ones. Around 1961, I picked from that pile a book titled Loch Ness Monster, by Tim Dinsdale. I recall my mental sneer, for I knew like everyone else that this was a mythical creature and a tangible tourist attraction invented by those canny Scots. But I thumbed the pages, and saw a set of glossy photos: claimed stills from a film! If these were genuine . . . . So I borrowed the book. Having read it, I couldn’t make up my mind. The author seemed genuine, but also very naïve. Yet his film had been developed by Kodak and pronounced genuine. Could it be that Nessies are real?
I was unable to find a satisfactory discussion in the scientific literature. So I read whatever other books and articles I could find about it. I also became a member of the Loch Ness Investigation, a group that was exploring at Loch Ness during the summers, and I followed their work via their newsletters — I couldn’t participate personally since I then lived in Australia.
A dozen years later, on sabbatical leave in England, I took a vacation trip to Loch Ness. More serendipity: there I encountered Dinsdale. Later I arranged lecture tours for him in the USA (where I had migrated in 1965). Coming to know Dinsdale, coming to trust his integrity, seeing a 35mm copy of his film umpteen times during his talks, brought conviction.
It had taken me 12-15 years of looking at all the available evidence before I felt convinced.

The unorthodox view that underwrites this blog is that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. How did I come by that belief in something that “everyone else” does not believe?
More serendipity. Having concluded in the early 1970s that Nessies were probably real, I became curious why there hadn’t been proper scientific investigations despite the huge amount of publicity over several decades. That led eventually to my change of academic field from chemistry to science studies, with special interest in heterodoxies. So I was always on the lookout for scientific anomalies and heresies to study. In the mid-1990s, I came across the book by Ellison and Duesberg, Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS (interesting info about this here ; other Ellison-Duesberg articles here).
Just as with Dinsdale’s book, I couldn’t make up my mind. The arguments seemed sound, but I didn’t feel competent to judge the technicalities. So, again, I looked for other HIV/AIDS-dissenting books, and wrote reviews of a number of them. Around 2005, that led me to read Harvey Bialy’s scientific autobiography of Duesberg. For months thereafter, I periodically reminded myself that I wanted to check a citation Bialy had given, for an assertion that obviously couldn’t be true, namely, that positive HIV-tests in the mid-1980s among teenage potential military recruits from all across the United States had come equally among the girls as among the boys. The consequences of checking that reference are described in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory.
As with Nessie, it had taken me more than ten years of looking into the available evidence to become convinced of the correctness of something that “everyone else” does not believe.

So am I saying that I always sift evidence for a decade before making up my mind?
Of course not. I did that only on matters that were outside my professional expertise.

Studying chemistry, I didn’t question what the instructors and the textbooks had to say. I surely asked for explanations on some points, and might well have raised quibbles on details, but I didn’t question the periodic table or the theory of chemical bonding or the laws of thermodynamics or any other basic tenet.

That, I suggest, is quite typical. Those of us who go into research in a science don’t begin by questioning our field’s basic tenets. Furthermore, most of us never have occasion to question those tenets later on. Most scientific research is, in Kuhn’s words (2), puzzle-solving. In every field there are all sorts of little problems to be solved; not little in the sense of easy, but in the sense of not impinging on any basic theoretical issues. One can spend many lifetimes in chemical research without ever questioning the Second Law of thermodynamics, say, or quantum-mechanical calculations of electron energies, and so on and so forth.

So: Immunologists and virologists and pharmacologists and others who came to do research on HIV/AIDS from the mid-1980s onwards have been engaged in trying to solve all sorts of puzzles. They’ve had no reason to question the accepted view that HIV causes AIDS, because their work doesn’t raise that question in any obvious way; they’re working on very specialized, very detailed matters — designing new antiretroviral drugs, say; or trying to make sense of the infinite variety of “HIV” strains and permutations and recombinations; or looking for new strategies that might lead to a useful vaccine; and so on and so forth. Many tens of thousands of published articles illustrate that there are no end of mysterious puzzles about “HIV/AIDS” waiting to be solved.

The various people who became activist camp followers, like the non-scientist vigilantes among the AIDStruth gang, didn’t begin by trying to convince themselves, by looking into the primary evidence, that the mainstream view is correct: they simply believed it, jumped on the very visible bandwagon, took for granted that the conventional view promulgated by official scientific institutions is true.

It is perfectly natural, in other words, for scientists and non-scientists to believe without question that HIV causes AIDS even though they have never seen or looked for the proof.

What is not natural is to question that, and the relatively small number of individuals who became HIV/AIDS dissidents, AIDS Rethinkers, HIV Skeptics, did so because of idiosyncratic and specific reasons. Women like Christine Maggiore, Noreen Martin, Maria Papagiannidou, Karri Stokely, and others had the strongest personal reasons to wonder about what they were being told: since they had not put themselves at risk in the way “HIV” is supposedly acquired, and since they were finding the “side” effects of antiretroviral drugs intolerable, the incentive was strong to think for themselves and look at the evidence for themselves.
Many gay men have had similar reason to question the mainstream view, and some unknown but undoubtedly large number of gay men are living in a perpetual mental and emotional turmoil: on one hand much empirical evidence of what the antiretroviral drugs have done to their friends, on the other hand their own doctors expressing with apparent confidence the mainstream view. So only a visible minority of gay men have yet recognized the failings of HIV/AIDS theory.
One of the first to do so, John Lauritsen, was brought to question the mainstream view for the idiosyncratic personal reason that, as a survey research analyst, he could see that the CDC’s classification scheme was invalid.
Among scientists, Peter Duesberg recognized some of the errors of HIV/AIDS theory because he understood so much about retroviruses and because he had not himself been caught up in the feverish chase for an infectious cause of AIDS. Robert Root-Bernstein, too, with expertise in immunology , could recognize clearly from outside the HIV/AIDS-research establishment the fallacy of taking immunedeficiency as some new phenomenon. Other biologists, too, who were not involved in HIV/AIDS work, could see things wrong with HIV/AIDS theory: Charles A. Thomas, Jr., Harvey Bialy, Walter Gilbert, Kary Mullis, Harry Rubin, Gordon Stewart, Richard Strohman, and many others who have put their names to the letter asking for a reconsideration.

********************

To summarize:

Mainstream researchers rarely if ever question the basis for the contemporary beliefs in their field. It’s not unique to HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS researchers and camp followers never cite the publications that are supposed to prove that HIV causes AIDS for the reason that they never looked for such proof, they simply took it for granted on the say-so of the press-conference announcement and subsequent “mainstream consensus”.

The people who did look for such proof, and realized that it doesn’t exist, were:
—  journalists covering “HIV/AIDS” stories (among those who wrote books about it are Jad Adams, Elinor Burkett, John Crewdson, Celia Farber, Neville Hodgkinson, Evan Lambrou, Michael Leitner, Joan Shenton);
—  directly affected, said-to-be-HIV-positive people, largely gay men and also women like those mentioned above;
—  individuals for a variety of individual reasons, as illustrated above for John Lauritsen and myself;
—  scientists in closely related fields who were not working directly on HIV/AIDS.

That last point is pertinent to the refrain from defenders of HIV/AIDS orthodoxy that highly qualified scientists like Duesberg or Mullis are not equipped to comment because they have never themselves done any research on HIV or AIDS. But that’s precisely why they were able to see that this HIV/AIDS Emperor has no clothes — scientists working directly on the many puzzles generated by this wrong theory have no incentive, no inclination, no reason to question the hypothesis; indeed, the psychological mechanism of cognitive dissonance makes it highly unlikely that scientists with careers vested in HIV/AIDS orthodoxy will be able to recognize the evidence against their belief.
More generally, this is the reason why the history of science contains so many cases of breakthroughs being made by outsiders to a particular specialty: coming to it afresh, they are not blinded by the insider dogmas.

So there is nothing unique about the fact that the failings of HIV/AIDS theory have been discerned by outsiders and not by insiders, and that the insiders are not even familiar with the supposed proofs underlying their belief. Nor is it unique that the dogma has many camp followers who never bothered to look for the supposed proofs of the mainstream belief. What is unique to HIV/AIDS theory is the enormous damage it has caused, by making ill or actually killing hundreds of thousands (at least). The annals of modern medicine have no precedent for this, which is another reason why thoughtless supporters of HIV/AIDS orthodoxy may feel comfortable with it despite never having sought evidence for it.

So here’s the question to put to everyone who insists that HIV causes AIDS:

HOW  DID  YOU  COME  TO  BELIEVE  THAT?
WHAT  CONVINCED  YOU?

————————–
Cited:
(1) Henry H. Bauer, Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy, University of Illinois Press, 1984; chapter 11, “Motives for believing”.
(2) Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1970 (2nd ed., enlarged; 1st ed. 1962)

Posted in experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism, prejudice | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: