HIV denial: international flavor

Just a quick post to note that fellow ScienceBlogger Nick Anthis has up a post on HIV denial in South Africa. Though this is a topic I've touched on, he goes into a deeper history of it, including more about the cultural reasons for denial (whereas I typically focus more on the science).

In other news, I have an editorial today in the The Times Higher Education Supplement in London. You can find it here (registration required).

More like this

It's that time of the year. Spots for ScienceOnline are a hotter commodity than Justin Bieber concert tickets amongst the pre-teen crowd; The Open Laboratory 2011 has just come out in print; and academics are discussing the utility of social media in full force. This topic has long been an interest…
I still remember when L. L. Cavalli-Sforza's The History and Geography of Human Genes was a candle in the dark, illuminating human history with slivers of genetic data laboriously gathered and analyzed over decades. We've come a long way. Dienekes points me to a new paper, Fine-scaled human genetic…
Chris has been excoriating Tom Bethell (author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science") over on The Intersection and elsewhere (see, for example, here, here, and several posts here). However, since he's not yet done a takedown on Bethell's chaper on AIDS (titled "African AIDS: a…
There's been quite a bit of blogging lately about HIV denialism, so I thought I would take this opportunity to write a little bit about HIV denialism in South Africa--a subject that gets mentioned pretty often is rarely discussed in much detail. I spoke about this topic in my talk on Wednesday,…

I wonder how long it will take for the HIV/AIDS denialists to pollute this thread with their bogus claims?


nothing sullies science and Tara's blog more than Tara herself.

Many of the "denialists" are simply trying to give science it's integrity and stature back after Tara's had her way with it.

There's your answer SLC, less than five hours.

AIDS denialists, eh? How quaint, I thought they'd all died out years ago. Perhaps they've teamed up with the Global Warming is a Myth and Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer groups?

No Mad Dog those ones are way too mainstream for the AIDS denialists they've teamed up with the "homosexuality as an aberration or illness" and the Loch Ness Monster groups. Check out "Henry Bauer" if you don't believe me.


Why don't you organise a live debate with some of the denialists.

If they are that far wrong , you should not have any trouble
in making them look like fools.

Why go to the trouble of a live debate? The denialists made fools of themselves since Duesberg did his first crap "review" so why debate them?

The founder of "alive and well" except for Eliza Jane is a screwball named Christine Maggiore she's a famous international denialist who wouldn't test her daughter for HIV and she died. She invited ME to debate her in California all expenses paid. Guess who I am? A tech!!! I'm not ashamed I don't make it a secret. And part time!!

These denialists are so despearate they'll even take ME for a debate. They need a debate to get themselves feeling legitamized. So they don't feel so bad about all the people who died like their own kids because of them. Why give THem a debate? They ones who aren't stupid are murderers and you can't debate people like that!

Re Dan

Yessir, those flat earthers and geocentrists are just trying to bring integrity and stature back to science.


Debates aren't how things are done in science. This isn't politics--the smoothest talker doesn't "win." Scientific debates take place in the literature, and this one was resolved many, many years ago. Heck, even their "arguments" typically trace back to what Duesberg wrote about in the late 80s, as if HIV research has been stagnant since then.

BTW, it's not just HIV deniers I wouldn't debate in a format like that. I also won't debate the evolution deniers or the germ theory deniers. Guess I'm just a big meanie.

As the Archbishop said to the whore:

"Well you wouldn't would you..."

There was never any debate in the "scientific literature" Well there was a little exchange between Duesberg and Gallo, And duesberg cleaned his clock.

The "scientific literature" is heavily influenced by the government stance on issues. If in Orwell's 1984 society big brother said "hiv is the cause of Aids" don't you think that would affect peoples ideas, including scientists?

It boils down to this the government funded hiv, put ads obout hiv on TV 24/7, cutoff scientists who didnt approve of the hypothesis...............if the governemnt was nuetral on the issue than you would see a real debate.

Fortunately many scientists who getting exposed to the dissidents arguments are agreeing with them, like Pollock and Margulis recently. Harvey Bialy told a story of how many South American scientists were skeptical of hiv rethinkers, he gave a seminar and after almost all of them agreeed more proof was needed to say hiv causes AIDS.

This "scientific consensus" you guys gloat about is manufactured consent. When you only hear one side of the story, you tend to beleive it, once scientists hear the other side, honest scientists who don't work for AIDS inc. realize theyve been duped and the "consensus" falls apart.

For Lurkers

See hiv fact or fraud.

Read project day lily to find out about the mycoplasma biowarfare program, a microbe that DR. shyh ching lo from the army killed every animal injected.

Dear Tara
Why do you need so many dissident threads? Whereas one hot bed of stupidity might be enough?

Dear Carter,

Because new things happen regarding either HIV itself or HIV denial. You don't have to move the ongoing discussion to each new post I write. If you note, the last HIV-related thread I opened up to comments was almost a month ago; it's just that the one from June is still racking them up.

Guess I'm just a big meanie

No, just a clueless, Iowa farm skank, who knows nothing about AIDS or science.

By Ben Gorman (not verified) on 14 Sep 2007 #permalink

The public must engage more with the scientists whom are paid by our tax dollars or the HIV/Aids promoters and schemers will gain credibility, argues thousands of dissidents in response to Tara Smiths Terror and AIDS Inc. Propaganda Campaign.

There is a devastating Aids epidemic in Africa. HIV exists and causes AIDS. Poverty and Nutrition and Clean Drinking Water and Stress and Psychology and Toxic Drugs have nothing to do with succumbing to illness. People are not dying because pharmaceutical companies are poisoning them with toxic antiretroviral drugs, but simply and only because they're sexual perverts infected with a deadly virus called HIV. And scientists investigating dissidence are getting rich by selling books and magnets and herbs or by propagating the theory of its nonexistence, which they know is a fabrication.

Ridiculous, right? Wasn't an attempt to settle this 20 years ago begun by Academy of Science Member Peter Duesberg, Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis, and several others? That HIV does not cause Aids is no longer a scientific controversy, because the many holes in the theory have been long pointed out. But for groups that promote that the virus leads to the disease, no amount of evidence has been enough to convince them. And because these groups seek to spread their "faith" of the HIV/ Aids paradigm to others, academics must remain vigilant. It is up to us to explain the failures of science to the public and to be aware of the methods used by the HIV pusher promotion groups, because the consequences of HIV promotion has been nothing less than lethal.

For any scientific theory there are initially gaps in understanding. These gaps allow for - and encourage - scepticism of the proposed hypothesis and active investigation to fill these gaps. Healthy sceptism requires stepping back and looking at the greater picture. It requires breaking free of bias and ones own self promoting and self serving egoic domination. This is a healthy and necessary, but all too often missing part of science as the healthy scepticism of the few brave enough to do so, has often proven correct as in the case of HIV noncausation to AIDS, but has been met with ostracism or threats by those who are entrenched or enriched by a false theory. As our knowledge base increases, some hypotheses will become better supported by data and others will fall by the wayside as the tide of evidence turns against them, eventually leading scientists to reach a consensus view. This is often however, very difficult to accomplish when millions, let alone billions, of dollars are at stake, and when pharmaceutical companies stand ready to reap bonanzas from drugs that are many times, the cause of even greater devastation and harm than the illnesses they are attempting to treat.

With HIV promoters, accumulation of dissident evidence is never enough. Bias and ego blocks the way to even considering such evidence. New research and new evidence causes them to "push back the goalposts", to always demand more evidence than can be provided. When it is provided, the promoters push the goalposts back again, or refuse to accept that the evidence meets their demand.

One way to brush off novel evidence is to attempt to discredit the scientists carrying out the studies as has been done to Dr. Peter Duesberg, Harvey Bialy, Etienne De Harvren, Lynn Margulis, Andy Maniotis, Serge Lang, Rebecca Culshaw, and others.

This is another hallmark of the HIV promoting groups. While they hold up some of their "founding" scientists as heroes to their cause, such as Robert Gallo, or Luc Montagnier, they accuse those who do not accept mainstream ideas of being murderers, or lunatics, or "selling out" to the magnet or herbal or publishing industry, despite the fact that none of these researchers receive funding from any such company. For those who receive no industry support, the HIV pushers argue that it is still in the scientist's best interest to maintain their dissident position due to all the money they can make writing dissident books.

This allows HIV promoters to summarily dismiss scientists who have seriously investigated the evidence, and so do not support the HIV causation of Aids theory as either lunatic fringe murderers, since supporting the dissident view brings these researchers no financial gain via salary or research funding, or as liars and "psychopaths" who are insane tyrants that are unwilling to speak out for the prominent theory (which HIV promoters argue everyone "knows" is correct).

In the end, Aids science has become a grand money pit for mediocre science and mediocre scientists, replete with all of its unanswered demands for evidence, faithful followers pushing the flawed and miopic works of mediocre scientists as if it were their newfound bible, and controlled by the NIH's billions, and by the pharmaceutical industry with scientists and doctors as more than willing self serving pawns. Therefore, vast swaths of nonsensible data in the literature can be brushed away by the HIV pushers, leaving only their fellow most mediocre and their most financially benefitting "propagandists" and "promoters" as the scientists with enough audacity and lack of integrity to speak against "Aids Denialists".

These strategies are not unique to HIV promotion. Other groups, such as those who push off beat religion such as Warren Jeffs, or politics such as communism or dictators, employ similar strategies: moving goalposts, assigning ulterior motives to dissenting scientists to discredit them, cherry picking evidence, demanding constitutions be changed to silence dissenters.

They also all commonly spend the majority of their efforts critiquing the dissident beliefs, wrongly assuming that if the dissident paradigm is stopped their own unproven ideas will fill the void and the world will be saved as soon as everyone gets on the AIDS drugs as a prophylactic or as soon as a magic pill is invented to slay the microcopic viral monsters in their imaginations.

Though based mainly in the US and Canada, prominent HIV promoters have worldwide influence via the government, via pharmaceutical companies, via all of the fund raising promotional groups, via the internet and beyond.

In 2000, South African President Thabo Mbeki had the good sense to investigate his own suspicions of poverty as the source of his countries woes, and invited HIV "dissidents" as well as the mainstream promoters to a conference discussing the aetiology of Aids, expressing possible doubt that the virus was the causative agent. After thoroughly investigating both sides of the issue, Mr Mbeki reached the only possible conclusion one could reach when one has freed themselves of bias and fear and egoic domination, and has the highest good in mind. He attempted to share his findings with his countrymen, but has since backed off from voicing his findings, as the ignorant fear filled masses rejected his statements and demanded their magic pills, but his presidency remains embroiled in battles over treatment and management of the disease - battles that the pharma pushers argue are costing lives, yet they refuse to see their own role in this, and prefer to empty this country's coffers into their own accounts instead of dealing with the real causes of illness there.

Serious and integrous scientists, rightly, scoff at HIV promotion as the cause of AIDS, because the ideas put forth by HIV promotional groups were long ago discredited in the scientific literature. However, ignoring these promoting groups only allows their misinformation to spread unchecked through cyberspace, and through the fertile minds of the uneducated, where few will have the willingness necessary to analyse the HIV promoters' claims. Instead, they may not only accept but also propagate these false ideas, potentially putting themselves and others at risk. Scientists, medical doctors and health educators, and the entire world, needs to be aware of the hazard of the self serving HIV promotional groups and the strategies they use and, when possible, engage the public more actively in an understanding and failures of science and the understanding of the true scientific method, which would continue to view our assumptions of "reality" from a place of healthy scepticism, and WOULD NEVER STOP QUESTIONING.

brilliant rebuttal, Ben. Calling the blog mistress a "skank" certainly has convinced me that HIV doesn't cause AIDS! Thanks for your insight.

By charlieboy (not verified) on 14 Sep 2007 #permalink

I have an original post thats being held up, it was damn good too!

Ladies and Gentlemen;

I'm not really a biologist, just a physicist and high school teacher, but even I can see that something has gone too far here. "clueless, Iowa farm skank"? Let's get real. If you have a case, state it. If you don't, please shut up.

For all you HIV denialists out there, before you get further into namecalling, can you please explain a little bit on the following topics?

1) Please explain how people with absolutely no other risk factors (Arthur Ashe, Ryan White are the two that pop into my head) _other than_ a blood transfustion got AIDS, if not for HIV. If HIV or some other infectious source is not the cause of AIDS, why would they get it?

2) Please explain how agressive treatment with with drugs targeting HIV have dramatically extended the lifespan of people with AIDS and/or people diagnosed with HIV infection. When I was an life insurance actuary in the 80's, the time from diagnosis to death was pretty much capped at 2-3 years. Now, it may be well over 20 years (see Magic Johnson, still alive and well 16+ years after diagnosis). If not for the drugs and treatment, what has led to the change in prognosis?

3) Please explain how viral load is a good marker for survival and symptoms, if not for the hypothesis that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

Please, explain all this. When you do, I'll be happy to join in your cause. My belief that HIV is the causative agent for AIDS can be disproved.

Can your belief that HIV is _not_ the causative agent for AIDS be disproved?
-- If there isn't anything that can disprove your belief, please shut up -- it's religion you're spouting, not science.

-- If there is something that can disprove your belief, please, let us know what it is. And no "massive conspiracy" either. Let us know what it will take to convince you. If you tell us what it takes, we'll find the evidence.

Until you can put up or shut up, please, just shut up.


A. Stephen Beach
One Perturbed Science Teacher

By spudbeach (not verified) on 14 Sep 2007 #permalink

Until you can put up or shut up, please, just shut up

Dear "Perturbed",

you're projecting.

We're still waiting from "your side" to show us that what you call "HIV" invariably causes what you've called "AIDS".

So far, you guys have been batting zero.

Dear Teacher Beach. Starting off your own conversation by calling people "denialists" does not exactly warm my heart toward you. You might want to watch your own mouth.

Nobody is an "AIDS denialist" as AIDS is simply a syndrome defined by a positive HIV antibody test, and any of 29 often common illinesses, or a low CD4 count in usually completely and quite healthy individuals.

Though many people have come to believe that HIV is not the cause of the syndrome of illnesses associated with the definition of AIDS. Therefore, most all dissidents do indeed DENY that HIV is the cause of such.

I would recommend that if you are actually SERIOUS about learning what and why the dissidents believe as they do, then I would suggest a very simple and easy to read in one hour book by former HIV modeling mathematician Rebecca Culshaw, called "Science Sold Out". It is a general view of the dissident perspectives.

Dr. Henry Bauer has just released a book titled "The Origins, Persistance, and Failures of HIV/AIDS".

Both books will give you quite a bit to consider in determining your own position.

As to your little challenge, quite briefly, though I could go into far more details, I offer you the following for your immediate consideration:

1) Arthur Ashe and Ryan White were both affected by high dosage AZT monotherapy. Your best bet is to check the exact cause of death. You will find Ryan died from internal bleeding. You will also find that both BELIEVED they were going to die. The intense effect of this in terms of health when one is resigned to ones own death is very intense. I am sure it is no surprise to you that depression and states of hopeless, helpless anxiety are detrimental and suppressive to the thymus gland and immune system. I do not know the exact cause of death of Arther Ashe, but it should be investigated. It was 92 or 93, and high dosage monotherapy was the only treatment offered at the time. Those taking such averaged 8 months to 1-1/2 years on it.

2)You are making an assumption that the drugs have lengthened the lifespan of those taking these drugs. In comparison to those taking high dosage AZT, most certainly those taking the newer drugs will live longer. AZT was a disaster. Almost anything compared to that drug would make another drug look great. However, liver failure is and has been the leading cause of death of HIV positive Americans, as can be verified by the research of Amy Justice, who presented at the 2002 AIDS conference that liver failure was the leading cause of death, directly related to those taking the newer drugs since AZT monotherapy.

2) Several studies have shown that both CD4 counts and high viral counts only correlate to serious illness in a small percentage of individuals. It is far from across the board. Furthermore, the test that is used for counting "viral load", has been shown to show "viral loads" in people who show HIV negative in other tests. Even your dogs blood will show an HIV viral load. The man who invented PCR technology, Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis, which invention is used for finding "viral load" is, by the way, a well known AIDS dissident,

Mr. Beach,
Start with finding out what the tests actually detect and cannot detect. In addition to Bauer and Culshaw reading, is a catagorized and understandable source.

Can your belief that HIV is _not_ the causative agent for AIDS be disproved?

Science has been trying to disprove the dissident belief for 25 years, and has failed miserably resulting in the now rapidly growing dissident movement. Every mathematics model has repeatedly failed. Every cohort of AIDS patients with actual illness has many correlative factors involved from drugs to malnutrition to extreme stress and psychological factors that the virus pushers refuse to acknowledge even are MAJOR health factors. After 25 years, How long would you suggest we continue to wait for the indisputable evidence that HIV in and of itself is harmful to anyone. Many Thousands of nontreated long term nonprogressors, who avoid unhealthy lifestyles, and that steer clear and away from doctors and scientists who would promote nothing more than to poison them with extremely harsh chemical treatments are quite substantial evidence that all is not well with HIV.

Show us any untreated western cohort of individuals actually ill with AIDS who are not destructive drug abusers.

He's a science teacher, for heavens sake! What do you all expect? HIV never ceases to show how; from science teachers to scientists it has left them with their "tushes al aire", as we say here...The vast majority are State produced morons with a flawed dialectic and a microscope, and no ability to see what's there. They need to be told so they can believe.

Lemmings with degrees; it's pathetic.

We are here. We are not taking the poison any more. I flushed it down the toilet Tara and Mr. Science teacher. Yes down the toilet. And do you know what. I feel better. I feel great. Do you know why? Because there is nothing wrong with me nor was there ever, save the state voodoo called HIV infection which you all are still trying to push on us all, I am not infected with anything. Nor is anyone else for that matter.

I am not going to die Tara and Mr. Science teacher, nor are so many others who are doing the same. You can call us denialists and all you want. We know what we are. We are the ones that prove that you are all stupid, a fraud and liars.

So get used to it, all of you.
We are not going to shut up.


I al so second and applaud this:

"No, just a clueless, Iowa farm skank, who knows nothing about AIDS or science."

Right on Manu as many of us have found a better way, which is to eliminate any of the AIDS defining diseases and live a healthy life. When the patient hasn't any symptoms, then the patient is not sick! Cancer patients would not be placed on radiation therapy or chemotherapy for the rest on their life nor those with other viruses. Yet, why do we do so with AIDS patients? It doesn't make sense.

When the patient hasn't any symptoms, then the patient is not sick!

What an ugly and totally old-fashioned way of thinking, Noreen! Today we must look at reality in a different manner. Look what I found in the French newspaper Le Monde (I'm not sure my translation is perfect so I include the original) :

Dependant on his genetic profile, a HEALTHY PATIENT will know his cancer risk, the possible evolution of the disease, the convenient treatment and it's toxicity
(En fonction de son profil génétique, un PATIENT SAIN connaîtra son risque de cancer, l'évolution potentielle de la maladie, le traitement qui convient et son éventuelle toxicité.)

Healthy patient !!!! I told you, they badly want us to be patients!

BTW, starting to become a gruesome gathering of denialist around here!

"No, just a clueless, Iowa farm skank, who knows nothing about AIDS or science."

That's not true. Tara is a scientist, she injects stuff into mice and then watches the mice fall ill. That's scientific research, didn't you know? Scientific research is searching in places where other people have already searched before you. Hence the REsearch.
Generally, when people keep searching in the same place all the time, it's not because there's something to be found, but because it's a convenient place to search for things. Like John, who's looking for his car keys under a light pole.

- Hey John, what's up?
- I've lost my car keys.
- You're sure you lost them here?
- No, but but I'm searching here because there is light.

Heck, even their "arguments" typically trace back to what Duesberg wrote about in the late 80s, as if HIV research has been stagnant since then.

I love it. They bring it up all the time. About what people wrote many years ago and about the fact that research has gone on.
But what they refuse to consider is that when you're going in the wrong direction, any progress will get you further away from your goal.

HIV research has started as a heap of shit in the 80s. Duesberg and others rang the bell. But the HIV-researchers just went on. Now the heap has become a mountain.

As I predicted, the HIV/AIDS denialist whackjobs, as usual, have come out in force. However, the comment from the piece of filth calling himself Mr. Ben Gorman really takes the cake. I strongly suspect that if the scientific credentials of Mr. Gorman and Prof. Smith were compared, Mr. Gorman not only wouldn't be in the same ballpark, he wouldn't be in the same state. As for Prof Deusberg, we are still waiting for him to take an injection of HIV laced blood to support his claim of no relationship between HIV and AIDS. His refusal to do so speaks volumes. It would appear that Prof. Deusberg has some chicken feathers where his competitive spirit ought to be.

Oh, my,

Tara and her goon squad have some world-class turd-polishing to do here.

Looks like some of those who've been abused (physically, emotionally) by the AIDS establishment don't feel like being abused any more. Good for them for speaking up and taking away the power from the "scientists" who've been abusing their power in this debacle for more than 20 years.

Congrats on the THES, Tara. That's a good forum for a literate, extended presentation. Pity that so many people think that being autonomous and self-reliant requires wishful thinking, rather than hard work and judgement.

To Denialists:

Someone I know likes to say "If you can't understand; maybe it's you: "
The article is titled Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Whence do you derive the expertise you assume you have?

Between 1989-92, I designed viral protease inhibitors for the purpose of discovering new drugs, and our lab was quite familiar with the biochemistry of HIV. It was all consistent with the HIV-AIDS connection. Some years later, I read two books by Duesberg and two things were obvious. First, he doesn't understand the anti-HIV drugs. Second, and this is sad, as I read his increasingly desperate arguments I thought "there must be a psychiatric/psychological diagnosis for his condition." I really do think that is unfortunate.

Nicely worded editorial, Tara.

Let's introduce you to the contenders...

On the left side of the ring are the AIDS establishment...the paternalistic authority figure.

One the right side of the ring are those who've been abused (physically, emotionally and mentally) by the AIDS establishment.

Looks like the abused are deciding enough is enough. They're growing up and have realized that "daddy" is not the loving, caring father they believed him to be.

Wow, Tara, you do seem to be able to step in it. Wipe off the mud boots and get back in the lab.

As a dumb Physicist who knows nothing about AIDS but something about experiments, I tend to believe in replication. But first a diversion.

I had cancer (the Lance Armstrong kind) in 1990. One operation, no chemo, no radiation. That was an experiment. I was given a choice by my urologist who said that the difference in outcomes were not significantly different with treatment and without. I took the less invasive route as an experiment. I won. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing, since it is statistics of a small sample (one).

Alternatively, two co-workers of mine had colon cancer. Same age (actually went to the same school). Only one had invasive removal of the tumor and part of his colon. The other? Homopathy. This was in 1984. The first is still alive. His colleague? Dead in six months.

Still? Small sample.

So back to our experimentalists here. Your "denialists" are experimenting with outcome. They have the right to deny that they are sick. They have the right to deny treatment. They may live for fifty years (and I hope they do, mazel tov). Or they may die of AIDS. One way or other the experiment plays out and being an experimentalist, I see some value in people taking alternative approaches to the experiment. Bless them for being courageous with their lives. And just hope they aren't making a mistake.

By captainlaser (not verified) on 15 Sep 2007 #permalink


Every day more and more gay men wake up from the quarter of a centrury trance we have been in. More and more see what it is that has been done to us. More and more will join the chorus screaming INFAMY from the roof tops. This lie without gay support is nothing. This AIDS lie without us would crach to the ground so fast you would not even know what had hit you.

Everyday more and more gay men wake up Tara and co-morons...We are making sure of that and there is pretty nothingt you and your henchdorks can do about it...every day nore and more!!! Your days are numbered, you homophobic witch from the depths of hell.

No Gay support=No HIV & AIDS. It's really just a s simple as that Tara.

Oh, and a p.s.

To the "denialists", please use protection and don't spread the virus around.

I don't want to take part in your "experiment".

By captainlaser (not verified) on 15 Sep 2007 #permalink

if you want a good view of what "denialists" scientists think, google the film hiv fact or fraud, you can watch it free.

Oh, and a p.s.
To the "denialists", please use protection and don't spread the virus around.
I don't want to take part in your "experiment".

Are you saying that you yourself don't practice safe sex or use protection? Interesting.

Re Manu

"Everyday more and more gay men wake up Tara and co-morons...We are making sure of that and there is pretty nothingt you and your henchdorks can do about it...every day nore and more!!! Your days are numbered, you homophobic witch from the depths of hell."

I must say that Prof. Smith is a lot more tolerant then I would be at allowing people like Mr. Manu to write comments with personal abuse directed at her on her blog. Mr. Manu, you are nothing but a pimple on the a**hole of society.

Anyone that dumb could not possible get layed...

LOL well you can kiss my pimple...all of you AIDS Death Cult devotees.

Everyday more and more gay men wake up

True. We're waking up and beginning to realize who are friends really are. They aren't Gallo, Fauci, Tara, Moore, Bergman and assorted AIDS promoters. They are Scheff, Farber, Geiger, Mullis and those who oppose this homophobic, sorry excuse for "science" paradigm.

More and more people in general are getting exposed to something they didn't even know was happening...that the construct of AIDS itself was being questioned. We can give Tara some thanks for that.

It had been a pretty successful policy by the AIDS establishment to marginalize the dissidents. But with Tara, John Moore, Jeanne Bergman and their ilk, the very idea that AIDS is being questioned is getting the attention it deserves.

Tara and her goon squad must think the public to be some pretty dumb bunnies, or like themselves, are unable to think critically. Not so.

Kyle, I recommend you google for "Gish gallop". Any denialist can talk far more nonsense in 10 minutes than can be disproven in 10 hours.

The "scientific literature" is heavily influenced by the government stance on issues.

Hear, hear: a world denialist. Denies the existence of any country other than the USA.

Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis

You do know what he got the Nobel Prize for, don't you?

I am not going to die Tara and Mr. Science teacher, nor are so many others who are doing the same. You can call us denialists and all you want. We know what we are. We are the ones that prove that you are all stupid, a fraud and liars.

You just want to believe it, eh?

Scientific research is searching in places where other people have already searched before you.

You can't get any good publications out of that, moron. What do you think a scientist's career depends on? On their impact factor -- on writing publications that are cited much.

No Gay support=No HIV & AIDS. It's really just a s simple as that Tara.

And you really haven't noticed that heterosexual people get AIDS, too?!? Or are you, dare I say it, in denial?

By David MarjanoviÄ (not verified) on 15 Sep 2007 #permalink

Please stop the bickering, you know we won't know the truth until Oliver Stone makes a movie of it.

And you really haven't noticed that heterosexual people get AIDS, too?!?

Oh, dear,

somebody really isn't "getting it".


without the initial and continuing support of gay men, this whole fantasy would fall apart. You can try to scare all the dark-skinned folk in Africa, but it will be to no avail once we gay men realize what's been done to us.

Manu is absolutely correct. No gay support, no "AIDS"

Tara's got her work cut out for her. From my perspective, she's promoting a paradigm that sends gay men to a pharmaceutical equivalent of Auschwitz, based on bad science. She better start proving to us homos that she's working in our best interest, because without us, AIDS will fall. She can start with me, Manu and Michael Geiger. C'mon, Tara, prove to us homos that we need to believe in HIV/AIDS!

Yes please do Tara, explain to us why you want us to die in chemo-Auschwitz, and I will even consider taking back calling you a homophobic witch from the depths of hell...

No, just a clueless, Iowa farm skank, who knows nothing about AIDS or science.
Ben Gorman: September 15, 2007 12:15 AM

What a charmer. What exactly is your scientific track record? Do you realise how much damage you do to what little is left of your own credibility with rancid garbage like that?

Tara, how you run your blog is of course entirely up to you, but I think you are far too tolerant and forgiving of these folk.

By Obdulantist (not verified) on 15 Sep 2007 #permalink

And the Band (albeit with new players) Still Plays on...


It certainly would be nice to see Tara lay it all...out.

Start from the beginning, Tara.

And explain in detail to us homos why we need to believe in HIV/AIDS.

We'll have lots of questions for you. Hopefully, you can answer them.

You needn't beg Tara for info about AIDs. There is this great website called pubmed central (type it into this great website called google) that will give thousands and thousands of scientific articles that will explain everything to you.

If that is too tough for you try one of the myriad HIV/AIDS info sites (again check that google place).

They will explain everything in big and small words.

If you ignore it all, fine. As far as I know, at least in the US of A, no one is forced to take any AIDs medications. They can refuse and as Scrooge might say "decrease the burden on society."


I'm asking Tara to put her money where her mouth is.

If she's so certain about the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, then she should have no problem rising to this occasion.

We are waiting Tara...the longer you leave it the bigger the audience becomes.

The rest of you homophobes pushers of viral voodoo on gay men, you better think of your reasons for defending and prmoting death as you do, but excusing it by saying: well you are not forced to take chemo. What hypocricy. Shameful hypocricy.

You are all pushiong death for gay men but want it to be voluntary. Hypocties!! Cowards!!!

We are not taking it anymore.

Thats what this is about. Without us there is no HIV there is no AIDS.

Something that lurkers should bear in mind about the denialists is that they will all, in the same post, mention Peter Deusberg as a denialist hero and invoke the so called 50K prize for anyone who can isolate HIV as proof that no one has isolated HIV.

Duesberg has claimed this prize.

To me, that states everything you could ever need to know about any argument that cooler, carter, dan, or whatever HIV denialist twit comes up says. They just don't evaluate information or sources by any criteria besides whether the source is a denialist. In short, they think that they already know what is true, they just need to gather the evidence. And evidence is anything that they can twist into seeming to support what they already think is true.

On the other hand, if you pubmed search "HIV Aids seropositive seronegative" you will get about 56 pages of results. Quite a few of these are studies testing whether HIV negative and HIV positive people have different results from tests (such as CD4 counts in nasal mucous). This sort of study puts the HIV/AIDS hypothesis on the line every time its done, becuase if there is no difference than the HIV isn't acting consistently with the hypothesis.

The reason why AIDS/HIV researches will put their hypothesis on the line, and AIDS/HIV denialists will not, is not funding. It isn't because of some big bad conspiracy. Its because one group wants to find out what is true, and the other group already thinks they know.

Re Manu

Mr. Manu has obviously neglected to take his lithium this week.

Re Dan

Is that the same Kerry Mullis who chases teenage bimbos on the beach and imbibes LSD? The fact that Dr. Mullis won a Nobel Prize doesn't mean he isn't a whackjob. Linus Pauling was a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry who insisted that vitamin C would cure cancer. Brian Josephson is a Nobel Prize winner in Physics who insists that cold fusion, ESP and PK are real phenomena.

I would agree with that Manu, Manu appx how many % of the gay population doesnt beleive in hiv anymore in your estimation?

the only microbe worth worrying about is mycoplasma incognitus, kills every animal injected. Peer reviewed research

Google Project Day Lily to find out how it was part of the bioweapons program. The most shocking best scary book of all time

Is that the same Kerry Mullis who chases teenage bimbos on the beach and imbibes LSD?

Yes, and it's also the same Kary Mullis who talks to glowing raccoons!

I know you have a "point" of some sort to make. A black and white point. Not impressed.

I'm completely new to this subject, and I must say that I'm confused. Do gay people really think HIV is a long-running conspiracy perpetrated by academia, government, industry, etc, in order to torture homosexuals to death?? Do they think that there are no gay scientists? I must say, it's one of the strangest conspiracy theories I've ever heard. Is the illness known to affect cognitive functioning?

And what with the whole "No Gay support=No HIV & AIDS". What does that even mean?

As for the language directed at Tara, it makes them sound totally unhinged.

During the past several weeks, some progress towards understanding the "intellectual" history of the self-styled rethinkers was being made on the "Introduction" thread. Perhaps this is why the rethinkers immediately jumped to this thread, calling opponents "skanks" and making innuendo about the host. This is much easier and much more fun for them than responding to the specific examples of flaws in Duesberg's work that Chris Noble, Franklin, adelle, apy, Dr. P.S. Duke, and I have given.

Without Peter Duesberg's "reviews" of HIV and AIDS, I for one doubt that HIV denial would ever have got off the ground. Well, bad image, I suppose; HIV/AIDS denial wallows in the mud, intellectually and morally, all of the time. Peter Duesberg's past successes as a scientist, however, gave the movement an undeserved "credibility" that to this day distinguishes it from other wild conspiracy theories that do not have a NAS member at their core.

Unfortunately, everything Peter Duesberg has said about HIV and AIDS is wrong, except of course for his admission that the virus had in fact been isolated. Specific examples of his shockingly poor "review" research were given in the "Introduction" thread. Many, many more are available.

Somehow, probably because few of those who need or want Duesberg to be right have any relevant training in the sciences, these errors have gone unnoticed (or ignored) by the point that most of the dissident websites and books are carbon copies of Duesberg's ideas. Books that are recommended by dissident activists in this thread, like Henry Bauer's book or Rebekah Culshaw's book, are based on Duesberg, or more specifically the flaws of Duesberg.

Contrast this with the situation of HIV/AIDS science, where Gallo, Montagnier, and numerous others' groups isolated the virus independently from scores of patients in 1984 alone. Tens of alternative theories of disease etiology were explored by hundreds of scientists for at least the first half of the 1980s. Initial misunderstandings and inaccuracies were corrected and hypotheses refined, as time went on. Even today, we don't know everything, but we've come a long way, and we re-evaluate our knowledge constantly.

Dissidents are stuck in the past, their entire thinking based on ten- or twenty-year-old documents with claims that have never stood up to serious scrutiny, documents written carelessly and with marked scholastic sloppiness in what some would call personal attacks by a bitter man.

Until dissidents are ready to address the many flaws in Duesberg's work and contribute some data of their own, they cannot expect "their" ideas to be taken seriously.

By ElkMountainMan (not verified) on 15 Sep 2007 #permalink

She can start with me, Manu and Michael Geiger. C'mon, Tara, prove to us homos that we need to believe in HIV/AIDS!

Dan, you forgot and left me out.........

>I would agree with that Manu, Manu appx how many % of the gay population doesnt beleive in hiv anymore in your estimation?

Cooler, I just got off the phone with a friend that worked for an AIDS Hospice care group. He said its 50% believers, 50% thinks it's a crock of shit.

....HIV/AIDS hypothesis on the line every time its done, becuase if there is no difference than the HIV isn't acting consistently with the hypothesis. HUH?

WTF Seth? Who are you trying to fool with that kind of stupidity? Obviously your fooling yourself! Here's reading that demonstrates your lack of understanding........
"The second and potentially more exciting implication of the findings of RodrÃguez et al is that future improvements in the treatment of HIV infection and AIDS may result from improved understanding of the 90% of CD4 cell depletion that remains enigmatic "[It is exciting to admit that 25 years into an epidemic supposedly caused by a virus that depletes CD4 immune cells nobody knows how the virus causes it?]"
Henry WK, Tebas P, Lane HC. Explaining, predicting, and treating HIV-associated CD4 cell loss: after 25 years still a puzzle. JAMA. 2006 Sep 27;296(12):1523-5.

Can someone call up and say to these researchers: Henry WK, Tebas P, Lane HC. IT AINT A REAL FREAKIN VIRUS!

I've only recently starting reading this blog and am absolutely floored by what I see here. As of today, there are 214,868 articles in a Pubmed search for "HIV" but many here claim it's all wrong. What kind of arrogant, self-righteous pompous ass would think this? Someone who would write:

"Tara and her goon squad must think the public to be some pretty dumb bunnies, or like themselves, are unable to think critically. Not so."


"Yes please do Tara, explain to us why you want us to die in chemo-Auschwitz, and I will even consider taking back calling you a homophobic witch from the depths of hell..."


"We're still waiting from "your side" to show us that what you call "HIV" invariably causes what you've called "AIDS"."


"The vast majority are State produced morons with a flawed dialectic and a microscope, and no ability to see what's there. They need to be told so they can believe.

Lemmings with degrees; it's pathetic."

ect ect ad nauseum

How many of those 214,868 papers have you read compared to crackpot websites? How much knowledge do you actually possess on HIV biology and pathogenesis or even virology/infectious diseases as a whole? Based on what I've read not much.

If you are so convinced that the HIV/AIDS link is crap, get your Ph.D, perform some studies and publish the work. Good luck though. It had better be one hell of a paper for it to win a 1 to 214,868 match up.


No, most members of the gay community recognize "dissidents" for what they are: crazy, hateful jerks (most of them) or else affected people in denial about their own health problems.

Sadly, HIV can affect cognitive function. Partly since many antiviral drugs do not cross from the blood into the CNS, the remarkable reductions in mortality and morbidity made since the introduction of combination therapy have not translated into much headway against HIV associated neurocognitive disorders.

On a positive note, patients with these disorders are living longer after first diagnosis with HIV-associated dementia (7 or 8 times as long as in the late 1980s, I think), and there is often marked improvement when therapy-naive patients begin using the drugs, but progression to dementia still happens about as often as it ever did.

At the same time, I wouldn't say that the admittedly crazy-sounding denialist commenters on here are suffering from HIV-associated dementia. They may very well suffer from other neurological disorders, but that, too, would only be speculation.

Most HIV/AIDS deniers are simply conspiracy theorists. They believe in alien abductions, 9/11 conspiracy, homeopathy, and usually a laundry list of other speculative nonsense. They are often political extremists; in the United States, they may be Ron Paul supporters. An overlapping group are the right-wing social or religious extremists who believe HIV is a god's punishment on wrongdoers or that gay people just deserve to die. Naturally, they don't want their government to support AID research or anything else that might save lives. They are usually anti-vaxers and generally anti-government as well. The worst are actual neo-Nazis. Strangely, some of deniers with similar views are far, far, to the political left.

A small number of influential deniers have faculty positions and use them to advance their deadly agenda. In my opinion, based upon what I have seen and read from them, many of these people are mentally ill. Given the large number of academic scientists in the world, it is not surprising that a small cohort would have untreated or unsuccessfully treated mental illness and that a minority of these individuals would gravitate towards some fairly questionable activities, such as trying to end childhood vaccination, arguing HIV does not cause AIDS, blaming the government for 9/11, or, likely, all of these and more at once!

By ElkMountainMan (not verified) on 15 Sep 2007 #permalink

Ron paul is the man fool,
one of the the only congressman to vote against the patriot act and the Iraq War, unlike your godmother hillary

jim, all those papers assume HIv is the cause of AIDS, so they are irrelevent, if I went to my neighbors house to investigate how tall the space alien was that visited her, not whether he really came by, it would make the investigations irrelevent.

Several credible scientists have Questioned hiv at some time

Peter duesberg retroviral expert
Shyh ching lo md phd cheif of the infectious disease dept of the armed forces of pathology.
Kary mullis nobel prize winner, PCR inventor
Richard strohman phd unb mcb professer
Walter gilbert nobel prize winner harvard mcb professor
harry rubin ucb mcb professor

Why do so many doubt hiv?
-the lack of a reliable animal model (tons of chimps were injected none have died of AIDS after 20 years.
the low amount of hiv in the blood appx 1/1000 cells
most viruses wreak the most havok before antibodies, not 10 years later, thats why we get vaccines.

this miami herald article explains the dissidents positions well,

Also mentions the mycoplasma incognitus, which was part of the biowarfare program, read the Book Project Day lily how this mycoplasma is the only microbe to worry about.and was the centerpeice of the bioweapons program.

See the film hiv fact or fraud to hear the several scientists who doubt hiv, google these things if interested.

Many thanks ElkMountainMan.

This kind of reminds me of when I first started hearing about creationists/IDists, which, due to living in the UK, I hadn't really come across before. My first thought was "they can't be serious, can they"? How naive I was!

And Tara, keep up the good work. Don't let the loons get you down!

Whoa. You have my sympathies, Tara. I thought my creationist cranks were nasty and abusive and dim, but these HIV denialists are real flecks off the dung pile.

PZ, look at the credentials of the scientists who questioned the hiv hypothesis that I posted above, then compare them to your credentials! LOL

Sheesh. I leave cyberspace for a day and come back to this. At least you could be more creative with your insults than "Iowa farm skank."

I'm closing this down since there's no actual discussion.