portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

education | health | social services

The New Religion

The New Religion: "Science"
("HIV" and other such nonsense...)

***WARNING: sense of humor required!!***
Check out this letter I wrote to EthicalAtheist.com:

Your Skeptics' Links page includes a serious omission of some serious


I strongly encourage you to examine the facts about HIV and AIDS, and give
the subject the same sort of rigorous examination that you've given to the
existence of God. I am confident that you will be shocked to discover,
after such examination, that like God, HIV has never been proven to exist,
and in all probability does not exist.

You'll also be dismayed to find that science has, unfortunately, become yet
another religion.

This is particularly true of Western medicine. Prior to the 19th Century,
the masses of "lay people" were illiterate and ignorant of the Bible, and
were deliberately kept that way, so that the religious leadership could
maintain a position of power and economic advantage. Today, a "layperson"
is someone with little or no scientific training, and medical professionals
deliberately keep the lay public in ignorance of relevant medical facts, in
order to maintain their own lucrative and powerful positions in society.
They even go so far as to engage in the extensive use of Latin, just as the
Catholic Church once did, which serves the practical function of keeping
their "congregation" in a state of artificial incomprehension.

Applying this strictly to the "science" of HIV, and leaving the myriad of
other worthy considerations untouched, we find that the majority of
laypersons in Western society hold a great deal of faith in a virus that
they themselves have never seen, smelled, touched, tasted, or heard. This
in itself might be insignificant, if it weren't for the fact that this
belief is maintained despite the fact that scientists themselves have never
produced a single sample of purified virus to prove the existence of HIV,
in more than 20 years of the best-financed scientific research since
Christopher Columbus.

"But wait a minute," you ask, "if HIV has never been isolated or proven to
exist, just what are all these scientists studying in the lab?" I'm glad
you asked. What they're studying, in their own words, are "indirect
markers" for HIV. Antibodies, "viral" protein fragments, and other such
manifestations are not actual virus, and do not constitute isolation.

The significance of this may not be immediately obvious, so I'll draw an
analogy for you: We cannot see the air (unless, of course, we live in Los
Angeles,) but we can feel the wind, and see its effect on trees and other
objects in our environment. The wind, therefore, constitutes an "indirect
marker" for the air that we cannot see.

However, in practice, indirect markers are far more slippery, because they
only point to something that we cannot directly sense; they do not tell us
exactly what that something is. For example, I'm sure you've seen the
illustrations in children's books, of the "Cloud-man" in the sky who makes
the wind blow -- usually portrayed as a giant cloud with a face, whose
cheeks are puffed to blow the wind. Does the demonstrable existence of
wind prove the existence of the "Cloud-man"? Of course it doesn't.

Air, however, while it cannot be seen, can be collected, studied, measured,
and even separated into its component gases, whose properties can be
demonstrated and independently confirmed. "Cloud-man" cannot. This,
therefore, is how we know that air exists, and that "Cloud-man" does not.
Having never been isolated, HIV cannot be collected, much less studied,
measured, or otherwise examined.

"But what," you ask, "of the HIV antibody tests and the highly-accurate
viral load PCR tests that are capable of counting individual viral
particles in a patient's blood?" Again, I'm glad you asked, (and my but
aren't you full of intelligent questions today?) The only way to
corroborate the accuracy of an antibody test is to check it against the
presence or absence of the actual virus. The only way to do this is to
isolate the virus. Without isolation, it's entirely impossible to verify
the accuracy of any particular antibody test. This is why HIV tests all
come with disclaimers which state that the given test is not intended for
use as a sole diagnostic tool for HIV infection, and many come with a
disclaimer similar to the following: "At present, there is no recognized
standard for determining the presence or absence of HIV-1 infection." Read
that again. It might as well say, "For entertainment purposes only."

As for the viral load PCR tests, there's something very strange going on
here. The inventor of the PCR technique, Dr. Kary Mullis, who won the
Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993 for his invention of this highly-useful
scientific technique, is quite proud of its many legitimate uses. If you
visit his website, karymullis.com, you'll note that he extolls the many
uses of his invention, from the fields of archeology and anthropology to
the criminal forensic sciences. Yet, you'll note that nowhere in the site
does he make mention of the PCR technique's most common use: Measuring HIV
particles in the blood of AIDS patients. This is because Dr Mullis is not
proud of this particular use of his invention, because he sees it as
pseudo-scientific hokum.

In Dr. Mullis' own words, from the foreword of Dr. Peter Duesberg's book,
"Inventing the AIDS Virus":
"We [Drs Duesberg and Mullis] have not been able to discover any good
reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease
caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence
demonstrating that this is true.

We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug
called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint than the
presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand
why humans would take that drug for any reason.

We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived
in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is
human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake."

Also, if the viral load PCR test were accurate at all, it could be used as
a sole marker for HIV infection, since those who didn't have HIV would
theoretically not have a detectable viral load. This, shockingly, is not
the case. In fact, it is the standard practice of physicians in the West
that viral load PCR tests are NEVER to be done on anyone who has not
already tested "positive" on the ELISA and Western Blot antibody tests. If
you ask your doctor about this, he'll tell you that this is because you
might show a viral load on the test, even if you were HIV-negative. The
same standards might easily be applied to "test" for the presence or
absence of Satan in a person's soul, with equally convincing results.

Since the "discovery" of HIV in 1984 by Dr. Robert Gallo (a "discovery"
whose history I encourage you to investigate for yourself, though I warn
you that you'll be appalled by what you find,) modern virology has
continually presented us with virus scares that have little, if any, true
scientific basis, and which defy the laws of virology and epidemiology:

HIV: Allegedly discovered by Dr. Robert Gallo, who previously had
"discovered" no fewer than two retroviruses that, in his opinion, caused
leukemia. Of these, one, HL23-V, has been proven nonexistent, and the
other, HTLV-1, has never been conclusively linked with leukemia. In 1994,
Dr Gallo was stripped of his patents for his "discovery", as it was found
that he'd actually stolen the work of Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur
Institute. Without missing a beat, Dr. Gallo changed his tune about HIV:
Suddenly, HIV by itself cannot cause AIDS, and needs another virus to act
as a "co-factor". Can you guess the name of Dr. Gallo's "AIDS co-factor"
virus? Why, it's our old friend HTLV-1, the virus that didn't cause
leukemia, resurrected as the new AIDS virus. What a coincidence that a
single scientist managed to "discover" both of the viruses that, in
combination, supposedly cause AIDS, and what greater coincidence that he
serendipitously discovered one of them before he'd even begun AIDS
research, and was still seeking the virus that causes leukemia. What are
the odds, huh? I guess that this must prove that there IS a God.
Curiously, AIDS "experts" commonly refer to AIDS as an "epidemic" or even a
"pandemic", despite the fact that statistics fail to support the use of
such words. Cambridge Dictionary defines "pandemic" as, "(of a disease)
existing in almost all of an area or in almost all of a group of people,
animals or plants". Globally, fewer than 1 out of every 1400 people are
estimated to be infected with HIV. This describes neither an epidemic nor
a pandemic. It is also worth noting that, according to the World Health
Organization, over 95% of all HIV cases reside in third-world countries
where the facilities necessary for diagnosing HIV infection are virtually
nonexistent, which, in turn, means that over 95% of all of the estimated
4.2 million HIV infections in the world cannot be either confirmed nor
disproven. Convenient, huh?

SARS: Supposedly an airborne coronavirus, and highly contagious. Despite
this, only a few isolated outbreaks have been reported, and only a few
cases in each outbreak have been "confirmed", by the same sorts of
standards whereby we "confirm" HIV infection. Worldwide, the SARS death
toll, even if we take the most pessimistic estimate, is so small that it
vanishes in the noise-floor of ordinary mortality. SARS also marks the
first time that viral "isolation" has been accomplished on a computer
screen rather than in a lab. All of the pictures that you've seen in the
news of the SARS virus are actually computer-generated graphics. To date,
there are no actual pictures of the SARS virus itself.

West Nile: Supposedly a mosquito-borne virus, this year's first cases in
America were reported only this past week, in Arizona and New Mexico, in
the month of May. I challenge you to find a single mosquito in either
state at this time of year. Last year, Colorado led the nation in West
Nile cases, despite the fact that Colorado is not known for its mosquito
population. Nearly 11% of the cumulative total of all West Nile related
deaths since the beginning of the "epidemic" occurred in Colorado in 2003.
Curiously, heavily mosquito-infested states like Louisiana and Florida seem
to have been more or less ignored by this supposedly mosquito-borne virus,
in favor of states like Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico.

Monkeypox: Viruses, by nature, tend to be cell- and species-specific. For
example, the common cold virus is incapable of infecting human brain cells,
or indeed, any cell other than the cells in the mucuous membranes of the
human upper respiratory tract, and it is also impossible for you to pass
your cold on to your dog or cat. Not so with Monkeypox, which seems to
indiscriminately jump from species to species with ease. The lay public is
largely unaware of this obvious conflict with the known laws of virology,
and the Chicken Little "scientists" who perpetuate the virus scare
blatantly ignore it.

Ebola, Marburg, etc.: About 10 years or so ago, the book "Hot Zone" and
the movie "Outbreak" treated the American public to the spectacle of the
next panic, which was to fill the void between the Cold War and the
terrorism threat: Killer viruses from Africa. Ebola, in particular, is
said to destroy connective tissue, dissolving internal organs, until the
victim becomes nothing more than a bag of blood and bones, and literally
explodes. Despite being allegedly highly-contagious, none of these
supposed viruses has ever presented a serious outbreak on the African
continent itself, and all have failed to spread elsewhere. Numerous
expeditions to the same regions of Africa that supposedly spawned these
viruses (including the AIDS virus), have unearthed zero in terms of clues
as to the origins of these alleged viruses, or how they manage to infect

What more do I need to convince you that science has replaced Christianity
as the religion of our times? Do you need fire-and-brimstone predictions?
We've got that, in the form of the numerous virus scares listed above.
Would you be convinced if you saw the orthodox leadership denouncing their
detractors as irresponsible and dangerous? It's been done. All we really
need, to make it official, is a case of Immaculate Infection.

...Oh, wait. What about Kimberly Bergalis, the Virgin Mother of
heterosexual AIDS? I'll leave it to you to discover the facts of that case
for yourself.


homepage: homepage: http://www.aliveandwell.org

well-done letter! 17.Jun.2004 12:05


Thanks, Gos. If you are interested in reading about science as the new religion, check out Thomas Kuhn's excellent book: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It describes how dogmatic and personal the scientific world is, despite the propaganda portraying science as the impersonal arbiter of cold hard reality.

HIV was announced as the cause of AIDS not in a peer-reviewed scientific forum, but in a corporate media press conference. This was the first time such a thing had ever happened. Before that, any causes were announced only after the careful scrutiny of the hypothesis, by experts within that field. Not so with HIV. This is why the hysteria: the press had made it impossible for scientists to continue rational study of immunosuppression. Speak to a career scientist and you will learn of the public relations dilemma inherent in that profession. These days, if you want any money to study immunosppression, you better be trying to rationalize the current paradigm (HIV=AIDS=death), or you get no money.

This is not a conspiracy. This is bad science. Science circumvented by money. With every "HIV test" that is taken, a royalty is paid. There is big money there. Just as there is big money in "AIDS care." In our medical system, patients pay the most money when they are sickest. There is a financial incentive to keep patients as sick as possible, for as long as possible. This is why the "Hippocratic Oath". In certain ancient Chinese societies, patients only paid their doctors as long as they were healthy. If they were sick in any way, the soctor didn't get paid. That created a financial incentive for teh doctor to practice preventative care, and also to keep the patient as well as possible for as long as possible. Not so here in the enlightened capitalist West. If there is little financial incentive in doing something, it will not be done. That is the "magic" of so-called "free enterprise."


Stipulating that Gos is correct, 17.Jun.2004 13:20

just a citizen

then what conclusions am I to draw? That AIDS diagnosis and treatment is all a sham to make money and .... what? That no-one has found a cause or cure because no-one wants to upset the gravy train? I have trouble believing that there are NO scientists out there with enough integrity to do the right thing and get to the bottom of this. Or have I missed something?

In empathy with a dying continent 17.Jun.2004 13:33


Tell it to Africa.

Gos is correct - and literally hundreds of MDs & PhDs agree 17.Jun.2004 17:31


Disagreement about HIV's role in causing AIDS has been curiously absent from public and scientific debate, even though many of the 700 M.D.'s and/or Ph.D.'s of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis have published their reasons for their concern (Philpott 1999). Members of this group include current and former professors of molecular and cell biology at Harvard, Berkeley, and other prestigious universities, as well as two Nobel Prize winners in chemistry, Walter Gilbert and Kary Mullis. HIV is a "retrovirus", and Peter Duesberg, one of the earliest people to call for reappraisal, has been called the "father of retrovirology". David Rasnick, the president of the Society for the Scientific Reappraisal of AIDS, holds nine patents on protease inhibitors, the drugs claimed to have saved many people from the brink of death. And yet, Dr. Rasnick adamantly maintains that these drugs are contributing to, or directly causing their deaths rather than helping them. For a topic which has become so entrenched in the national and world-wide mindset, such a large number of dissenting voices among people with the highest credentials in their fields is unusual, to say the least, and yet researchers, health professionals, and the public have not been informed about the magnitude of the debate, or about the reasons why these dissenting scientists are questioning conventional dogma.

A list of 100 reasons HIV cannot cause AIDS:



strange how African & non-African AIDS are so very different 17.Jun.2004 17:49



a collection of African "AIDS" articles:

click on "Africa & 3rd World" on the sidebar:

another collection of African "AIDS" articles:
about Africa...
about Africa...

Author's Note 17.Jun.2004 18:29

Gos Gos2u@earthlink.net

The above letter, unfortunately, contains two errors that I failed to catch before press-time: The official WHO estimate of HIV-infected persons in the world is 42 million, not 4.2 million, and the ratio of infected to non-infected persons is estimated to be 1 in 140, not 1 in 1400. However, the statements that include these figures are still true. A ratio of 1 infected person to every 140 people still does not justify the use of the word "epidemic", much less "pandemic". Likewise, whether there are 4.2 million or 42 million persons estimated to be infected with HIV, the fact that more than 95% of them live in countries that are too poor to do mass HIV testing calls into serious question the accuracy of the estimate itself. From where are these figures derived, if there is no way to confirm them? As for the remaining 5% who live in industrialized nations, there's no reason to believe that these represent confirmed cases either, since more than half of the estimated HIV cases in the civilized world have never actually been diagnosed with "HIV". (For example, according to the CDC, more than half of the estimated 850,000 HIV-infected people in America are unaware that they have HIV, because they've never been tested.) This brings the total of "unconfirmed" HIV infections to about 97% or 98% of the total WHO estimate.

Responses to individual respondents:

RE: Well-done letter!

Thanks! And thanks for the info about Kuhn's book; I'll enjoy reading it.

RE: Stipulating that Gos is correct,

"I have trouble believing that there are NO scientists out there with enough integrity to do the right thing and get to the bottom of this. Or have I missed something?"

Actually, there are hundreds, if not thousands of scientists who have stuck their necks out for the truth about HIV. Unfortunately, they are almost always censored by the mainstream corporate media. Here's a very short list of only a few of them:

Dr. Peter Duesberg - Professor of retrovirology at Berkeley, discoverer of the retroviral oncogene, five-time winner of the Outstanding Investigator Grant, and author of the book "Inventing the AIDS Virus".

Dr. Kary Mullis - 1993 Winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for his discovery of the Polymerase Chain Reaction technique, which today is used in "AIDS" diagnostics, (though Mullis himself disapproves of this particular use of his technique, because he feels that it's being misused to mislead the public.)

Drs Eleni Papadopulos, Valendar Turner, et al - AKA the Perth Group, this group of physicians affiliated with the Royal Perth Hospital in Sydney Australia has been saying for years that HIV doesn't exist, that HIV tests are inaccurate, and that the "AIDS cocktail" drugs are actually killing healthy people, rather than saving lives.

Drs Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier - For no less than 10 years, both of these scientists have been saying that HIV, by itself, cannot possibly cause AIDS. Their credentials? Well, they're only the *discoverers* of HIV. I doubt you can cite a higher authority on HIV than these. You'd think, considering this, that someone would have yelled "STOP THE PRESSES" by now, yet the major corporate news media continue cranking out the same fearmongering stories about HIV, with little or no comment on the fact that HIV's discoverers themselves no longer buy the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Why is this? I invite you to watch "Bowling for Columbine", to see Michael Moore's portrayal of the American news media, and judge for yourself.

Each and every one of these scientists, (not to mention the hundreds that I didn't mention,) has risked career, livelihood, and reputation, trying to tell the public the truth about HIV. Unfortunately, each and every one of them has faced censorship by the corporate news media, who see more profit in inciting public panic than in the truth. Duesberg, in particular, documents this censorship in great detail, in his book, "Inventing the AIDS Virus", recounting how, time after time, he'd been invited to appear on national network TV, only to have the network cancel at the last minute, and instead give the airtime to Anthony Fauci or some other CDC stooge.

Long story short: Yes, you've missed something, but it's not your fault. The truth has been deliberately and systematically hidden from you.

RE: In Empathy with a Dying Continent

"Tell it to Africa."

Why don't you try telling it to Africa? I invite you to investigate further into the alleged "AIDS pandemic" on that continent. You'll be surprised at what you find.

You should really have a nice, long talk with a man by the name of Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa. He holds the rather controversial opinion that there's no AIDS epidemic in South Africa, or indeed anywhere in Africa at all. For this, he's been publicly ridiculed and accused of being "in denial". Of course, we all know that politicians shouldn't be trusted -- instead, we should direct our query to the people of South Africa themselves, to see what they think. Very recently, they were given an opportunity to voice their opinion in South Africa's national elections, and they re-elected Mbeki in a landslide. Let me ask your opinion on this: Would they have voted for him, if they thought that he had his head in the sand about such a serious public health issue? If there truly were AIDS patients dying on every streetcorner in South Africa, and the South African people thought that their President was in ignorance of this problem, you can bet he'd be out on his ass, yet instead, he's wildly popular, and enjoys far more public support than our own President.

Here's a listing of nearly 50 articles dealing with the alleged AIDS epidemic in Africa:


Here's a few of them, that I'd particularly like to recommend:






So 18.Jun.2004 00:05


So, are you saying AIDS itself is a myth? Or just that HIV causes it?

Why do I know people who were healthy and tested negative for HIV, then got sick and tested positive for it?

AIDS Denial- what's the point? 18.Jun.2004 06:21



the point behind questioning conventional "wisdom"... 18.Jun.2004 09:30


Too bad the last two posters were too lazy to follow any of the links provided. No wonder scientists can pass off bad science as fact, with such a public.

The point of all of this is to point out that immunosuppression happens naturally when drugs are used: poppers, heroin, cocaine, meth, crack, as well as prescribed AIDS drugs such as "cocktails" and AZT. The point of this is to stop th eiatrogenic murder of thousands with bad science. Killing healthy people with prescribed AIDS drugs is profitable genocide, and must be stopped. People who are dying from their drug use also must learn to stop what they are doing and let their bodies heal. Popper use in particular must be stopped by the gay community.

If we are to fight immunosuppression, we must get the FACTS, not the myths:

There are other links above. Try them out. Learn something.

As for the term "AIDS denial" - it is much more applicable to those who believe that AIDS is sexually transmittable - or that HIV has anything to do with AIDS. Check out this list of only the top 100 inconsistencies of orthodox AIDS "science."

The people you know who got sick befire testing positive for HIV got sick from an overuse of illegal drugs (especially nitrate inhalants, or "poppers" - almost exclusively marketed to gay men from the 80s until today) or overuse of antibiotics. Either way, those are enough to severely suppress your immune system.

Seriously, if you are interested in learning, rather than simply protecting the religious (and so far entirely ineffective) belief in a sexually-transmitted HIV=AIDS paradigm, then check out the links provided in this thread.

start off with a simple presentation:


I did read the links and remain unconvinced 20.Jun.2004 10:02


I'm sorry but this stuff does not jibe with what I have personally experienced. The people I know who got sick were not into any drug stronger than occasional pot smoking, and some were very anti-pharms and NEVER did poppers. I watched as a couple of HIV+ guys infected a half dozen of my friends AND my ex. I practiced safe sex and remain HIV- and healthy despite doing buckets of drugs in my youth.

Maybe the conventional explanation is not complete or accurate but I know what my friends and my ex-lover experienced and no amount of evangelical proselytizing on your part will convince me that my own experience is not to be trusted.

As for your condescending tone, fuck you (with a condom) too.

"Maybe the conventional explanation is not complete or accurate" 21.Jun.2004 18:10


That's an understatement if there ever was one.

So is it not evangelical proselytizing when the corporate media sings the gospel of the AIDS industry? It goes both ways. Except that the AIDS industry has no evidence for its flawed hypothesis that HIV has anything to do with AIDS.

There is no reason for you to suffer from immunosuppression, since you no longer do "buckets of drugs". If you had continued to so "buckets of drugs" then you certainly would.

Keep in mind there are over 60 different conditions, including a mild flu, that give you a "false HIV positive" result. People who consistently test themselves find that the test results are anything but consistent. Also, standards for positive vs. negative change from country to country, agency to agency, making a postive or negative HIv test result a political test more than a physical test.

Keep your mind open.

The AIDS denialists: Idiotic AND Dangerous 22.Jun.2004 23:56


As a physician that has seen quite a number of men, and one woman, die horrible deaths from AIDS, and who has seen sick friends markedly improved with protease inhibitors, I am surprised and sickened that these absurd canards persist. They have been so thoroughly refuted in the scientific world that I had thought they were in the same closet as those that think AIDS is a (leftist) (jewish) (government) (insert your favorite conspiracy here) manufactured disease. Sure, like the rest of our world, science has its problems - mainly, at the moment, corporate domination of scientific research, and a society that is in general illiterate when it comes to science. The immune system is hard enough to understand when you actually know something about it.

instead of putting innocent people in danger, why not spend your time doing something useful?


from project inform

(A nonprofit advocacy organization by and for people living with HIV/AIDS)

April 2000

AIDS Denialists Lose Ground

18 April 2000, San Francisco — A small group of AIDS denialists, calling themselves "ACT UP/San Francisco" attempted to shut down a community educational forum for people living with HIV on Monday night in San Francisco's Mission District.

The forum, addressing a new anti-HIV treatment strategy called Structured Therapy Interruptions, was co-sponsored by Project Inform and the newly formed AIDS advocacy group, Survive AIDS! The forum's panel included AIDS researchers from U.C. San Francisco.

A Project Inform staff member, who is a woman and mother of two young children, was physically harmed when an ACT UP/San Francisco member knocked her to the ground after bursting into the meeting room brandishing signs claiming that the anti-HIV medication AZT and other HIV treatments were killing people. They began spitting and screaming slogans at the panel members and the approximately 100 people living with AIDS in attendance.

In recent days, various members of the AIDS denialist movement have been reinvigorated by news that South African President Mbeki has been listening to the claims of people like Peter Duesberg and David Rasnick, who question if HIV causes AIDS or whether AIDS exists at all. Subsequent to contact with the denialists, South Africa has refused to supply readily available treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, or wider treatment for South African's with AIDS.

While ACT-UP San Francisco is certainly not in President Mbeki's rolodex, they are in fact the San Francisco contingent of the AIDS denialist movement. On other occasions they have papered San Francisco with posters, apparently targeting poorer neighborhoods like the Mission, claiming "AIDS is Over". Some members have met with conservative forces urging the US Congress to cut back on AIDS funding.

Matt Sharpe, a member of Survive AIDS! and a person living with HIV further noted, "People with HIV/AIDS came to the forum to learn and share their experiences. This small right-wing faction of homophobic and AIDS-phobic individuals attempted to disrupt the free flow of information among people facing a life-threatening illness."

Martin Delaney of Project Inform, a speaker at the meeting who was personally targeted by the demonstrators, commented, "Everyone in this city has shown remarkable restraint for years in dealing with ACT UP/San Francisco's infantile and illegal behavior, hoping they would eventually grow up or just get a life. Other cities ran them out of town much more quickly. But their time here is over and their full spectrum of activities will now be brought out into the light."

"It's ironic," said Brenda Lein of Project Inform, moderator of the program, "that of all the forces we have fought against in the battle against AIDS, nothing short of the virus, HIV itself, has been directly responsible for more deaths and suffering than the message being preached by these people. They are sowing the seeds of the future of the epidemic while attempting to divert those already ill from taking advantage of advances in therapy. It's mind boggling."

Meetings are being set up with City Officials to discuss putting a halt to this continued discrimination and violence against people living with AIDS by this handful of heretics.

August 2000

The 13th International Conference on AIDS, held in Durban, South Africa, proved to be both the most important and the most unusual meeting since the earliest days of AIDS. This is the first time that the huge international meeting has been held in the heart of the global epidemic. More than any previous conference, this one was forced, by pure proximity, to confront the most rapidly escalating human suffering associated with the disease. It riveted attention on the prohibitively high cost of drugs and the need to build the medical and social infrastructure required to support the complex treatment of HIV. Similarly, it provided an important watershed for many African countries, a time to fully acknowledge the threat they face, to ponder the cost of government inaction and the need for clear thinking about solutions.

Unfortunately, it was also a conference afflicted by great distraction, mostly from the US and European HIV/AIDS denialist movement. The denialists believe that AIDS doesn't exist, even in Africa, or that even if it does, it has nothing to do with HIV. For the first time, such views became a major part of the media coverage of the conference. There could not be a worse moment for such intellectual dishonesty, pseudo-science and arrogance to rear its head. Yet there is still hope that the sheer presence of the conference itself and the attending media attention, whatever its focus, was enough to put the issue of AIDS in developing nations in the spotlight where it belongs. By the end of the conference, attention was shifting back to the issues that really matter, such as prevention, unfair pharmaceutical pricing and the lack of medical infrastructure needed to deliver basic healthcare and treatment for HIV.

What Happened?

Several years ago, the idea of holding the 13th International Conference on AIDS in South Africa seemed like a great idea. It made perfect sense to move the conference to one of the great epicenters of the epidemic. Once that decision was made, the focus on South Africa, and Durban in particular, became fairly obvious. It was not only the right country but also the right city, one of few in the developing world that had the capacity for managing such an event. Moreover, as the wealthiest country facing AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, there was reason to hope that bringing the conference to South Africa would be preceded by serious prevention and treatment programs that might then serve as examples to the rest of Africa and Asia.

But the outlook for the conference was confounded when South African President Thabo Mbeki stumbled into the camp of the AIDS denialists while out cruising the Internet. President Mbeki's intrigue with denialist theories caused many scientists in Africa and throughout the world to wring their hands in despair and even cancel plans to attend the meeting. Though it is clear that Mbeki made a big mistake in giving a platform to the denialists on a pre-conference panel he created, it is equally clear that he raised some critically important questions that must be addressed if Africa is ever going to be able to cope with AIDS. Unfortunately, too much attention has been focused on his involvement with discredited fringe theories. Lost in the debate are the true challenges he has raised about how to bring solutions to his country.

A Little Background

Well-confirmed estimates say that 5,000 HIV-infected babies are born each month in South Africa. Among adults, sampling surveys suggest that upwards of 1,700 people per day are infected and that somewhere between one in five and one in ten are already HIV-positive. AIDS denialists complain that the numbers of HIV-positive people are merely estimates and not proven. But short of forced, mandatory testing of the entire population, such numbers are always estimates, based on well established sampling methods. There is simply no other way to do it.

Efforts to stop the spread of mother-to-child transmission have been hampered by a mix of high drug prices and confusion about the value of the drugs, stirred up by the AIDS denialists. They raised suspicions about the value of using drugs like AZT by inappropriately applying concerns about toxicity in long-term use to the short-term application of treatment around the time of birth. There is still no government plan in South Africa to intervene in mother-to-child transmission. Instead, the government claims it is awaiting the outcome of additional studies and building the necessary infrastructure. Independent efforts by the Nobel prize-winning group Doctors Without Borders, however, have shown that it is possible to do the job even with the existing infrastructure.

Still, no country in Africa is better poised than South Africa to make a dent against AIDS, even if some other African nations have already initiated more and better programs. Preventive treatment against mother-to-child transmission is financially feasible and the country has already invested in a wide network of clinics that could help administer the therapy in the context of pre-natal care. It is frustrating that obstacles to preventing mother-to-child HIV transmission include politics and misinformation.

More challenging, perhaps, are the problems of prevention and delivery of treatment to people who are already infected. Social conditions and deeply engrained cultural practices regarding sex and the role of women render typical Western-style prevention programs all but impotent. Certainly, condoms can be useful, but only if cultural norms support their use. Rape and other abuses of women by men play a clear role in HIV transmission and must be confronted head on. But it will take time to achieve meaningful change and it will come only as a result of an enduring national debate and strong leadership. It is the lack of movement on these fronts that frustrates many AIDS workers and activists in South Africa and much of the African continent.

It is far too easy to focus on drug treatment as the solution to the problem. And President Mbeki is correct in pointing out that Western treatment programs cannot be simply transplanted to the South African environment. Even with greatly discounted drug costs, treatment for the infected population could easily bankrupt even this, the wealthiest of the sub-Saharan African nations. The raw cost of drugs, moreover, is but a single part of the picture, as today's AIDS therapies cannot be used efficiently without large investments in diagnostic tests and services as well as accompanying medical care. (See the article Drug Pricing, AIDS and the Developing Nations in this issue of PI Perspective for more information on this topic.)

Confounding these issues is the fact that AIDS is not the only medical problem demanding attention in South Africa. Many other serious illnesses compete for government attention, along with poverty and malnutrition. All are affected by the high costs of potential solutions.

With this background, no one envies the difficult choices that must be made by the government of South Africa. There are no simple or readily available solutions. The last thing President Mbeki needed was confounding input from discredited Western scientists who themselves have little or no experience in dealing with the AIDS crisis. Yet that is exactly what he asked for and what he got.

AIDS Denialists to the Rescue

The US and European-based denialist movement is mostly made up of scientists who are either long known as eccentrics in their fields, retired or who have a known affinity for contrary opinions. Few if any of them have actually played even the smallest role in AIDS research or care programs, and almost none have treated people with the disease. Most are not physicians nor are they trained in the disciplines needed to determine the cause of a disease. Their arguments have been presented and rejected over and over again in the scientific community for the last decade and a half. As a group, the denialists simply refuse to accept any data that contradicts their own opinions and beliefs, yet they provide no original evidence or data of their own. These factors, while well known in the scientific community, are not immediately apparent to an innocent surfer of the Internet, nor are audiences who lack formal scientific training likely to see the giant holes in their arguments.

Prior to the Durban conference, President Mbeki learned of the denialist views in a sleepless night while searching the Internet for solutions. He thought he had come upon a group of self-described noble "dissidents" who claimed to be unfairly isolated and rejected by the scientific mainstream. Their own writings fail to mention how many times the scientific peer review process has already evaluated, assessed and rejected their arguments that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that HIV is harmless or doesn't exist, and that there really is no crisis in Africa. To Mbeki, though, "dissident" is an honored political term that he understandably relates to. He had no way of knowing the history of the denialist movement or the characters who populate its web pages, no way of knowing if they were genuine scientific experts, people pursuing a lost cause or just the latest conspiracy theorists.

Unfortunately, Mbeki's personal experience as a political dissident made him an easy target for the denialist yarn. Soon, he was inviting California denialists David Rasnick and Charles Geschectner to South Africa for consultation. Peter Duesberg was asked to send his book and data. Once the word got out, otherwise unknown writers and fringe activists working the denialist circuit were both singing Mbeki's praises and burying him in their papers, documents and opinions. No similar effort was made to seek input from genuine HIV experts, at least at first.

The scientific community in Africa and internationally were aghast, realizing that Mbeki had inadvertently opened the hen house to the foxes. Instead of getting advice from people with genuine expertise in dealing with AIDS, he was soon being told that AIDS didn't exist, that the disease wasn't infectious, that it was just a manifestation of poverty and there was nothing he need do about it. People who didn't want to see their western governments channeling funds and services to Africa at taxpayer expense were now broadcasting their message through the head of an African state. Mbeki wrote a strange and strongly worded letter to US President Clinton suggesting that those who didn't want him to listen to the denialists were somehow similar to the oppressors of South African blacks in the days of Apartheid. It must have come as a great surprise to Mbeki, however, when the main voice supporting his odd turn of direction was in fact the South African Böerstadt party, itself the right wing political remnant of the Apartheid ruling parties.

World renowned African scientists joined with AIDS researchers internationally urging him to reconsider.

The Panel of Experts

Mbeki hoped to resolve the matter by calling for a meeting of international AIDS experts to address the question of HIV's role in AIDS, along with a list of truly important questions about how to deal with AIDS in South Africa. The panel was initially made up of roughly a 50-50 mix of mainstream and denialist-associated voices. The panel make-up was changed at the last minute to include a larger number of practicing AIDS experts and slightly fewer denialists.

Reports from people who attended that meeting suggest that within the first hour it became clear that little or no common ground would be found. Shortly after Mbeki himself decried the tragedy of AIDS unfolding in his country, one of the denialist leaders asserted that there was no proof that there was any problem or anything unusual happening in Africa at all. Two days of discussion went downhill from there, with the mainstream scientists and dissidents breaking off into two completely separate groups. After the weekend meeting, the discussions were to continue over a "closed" Internet discussion group, right up until the week before the International AIDS Conference in Durban. At the final meeting, a vague "compromise" was worked out that would arrange for further testing of the accuracy of HIV blood tests. After all the sound and fury, it was a curiously empty conclusion.

Durban—The Lost Opportunity

When Mbeki rose to the podium to welcome delegates to the "real" AIDS conference in Durban, there was great hope that he would now put his flirtation with the denialists behind him and call for drastic action against AIDS. He instead offered a classic politician's response, a long vague speech that left everyone wondering what he really believed. Hundreds of conference delegates walked out during the talk, which neither recognized nor denied the role of HIV. For most, it was enormously frustrating to see Mbeki squander a great opportunity to advance the fight against AIDS in Africa. All he seemed to promise was more confusion and delay. Sadly, those who walked out in protest missed the stunning presentation that followed, in which an 11-year-old boy succinctly and passionately made the case that had eluded Mbeki.

The other issues that Mbeki raised in his talk, such as poverty, hunger, and sanitation, are indeed critically important. But, as many researchers were quick to point out, these conditions long pre-existed AIDS and were no worse—and often better today than 50 years ago—yet the death rate is soaring today while life expectancy plummets. What's new, obviously, is HIV and AIDS. And this is what he failed to address. Instead, he wasted time defending his exploration of denialist views, sending a signal of confusion to patients and AIDS workers throughout Africa.

The harm done may extend beyond South Africa. When a respected head of state publicly muses about whether HIV might be harmless, it makes the job of prevention far more difficult. Unless he now makes clear and unequivocal statements to the contrary, many people—themselves goaded on by the denialist literature—may choose to take the easy way out and disregard the difficult messages and behaviors of prevention. His inaction has also at least delayed the initiation of government sponsored preventive treatment against mother-to-child transmission and may ultimately make women fearful of the drugs used for this purpose.

President Mbeki had the right idea in seeking expert input, but the process was diverted by trying to address the AIDS denialist position rather than the real issues at hand. The true blame here lies not with Mbeki but primarily with the AIDS denialists themselves who have brazenly taken advantage of a lapse in presidential wisdom. Having failed to make their case in the courts of science, they changed the venue to one of politics. They placed their own narrow and repeatedly rejected views above the lives of tens of millions of African men, women and children.

The proper venue for the debate about the cause of AIDS is the scientific community, where differing views are subject to the scientific process and peer review. When a point of view fails repeatedly in this venue, its proponents have no business trying to sell their beliefs instead in the political or public arena where people lack the background and knowledge to evaluate it. If they still wish to pursue their opinions, they are ethically obliged to conduct further experiments, collect more data, and try once again to convince their colleagues. Some denialists like to compare themselves to Galileo or other famous scientists who's views were once considered heretical. But the comparison is false. Galileo and others eventually succeeded through the strength of the data they presented to their scientific peers, not by politics or rhetorical appeals to the public.

Mandela Comes Through

Whatever the weaknesses of Thabo Mbeki as a leader, South Africa still possesses one of the world's greatest treasures in the person of Nelson Mandela. It fell to the man who defeated Apartheid to write the next act in South Africa's fight against AIDS. In a stirring speech at the conclusion of the conference, Mandela subtly and skillfully asked Mbeki to put his pursuits aside and urged all of Africa to aggressively confront the problem of HIV and AIDS. He spoke forcefully on HIV prevention, condom use, treatments to block mother-to-child transmission and education for the masses. With his carefully chosen words, Mandela made it abundantly clear that there was no time to quibble over old issues and political differences. The fire was already at the door. Echoing themes stated in an earlier uplifting speech by PWA and High Court Judge Edwin Cameron, Mandela brought the house to its feet, united in a clear vision of where to go, and what to do next. For the moment at least, all of Mbeki's hesitant and confused responses seemed unimportant, just another sideshow.


While it may be fair to say that the South African government has stumbled in its first efforts toward coping with AIDS, the same can be said of all Western nations. Certainly, the early years of the epidemic in the US offer no model for governmental behavior. Whatever mistakes have occurred in South Africa have been at least partially caused by western influences and their arrogance or disinterest in dealing with a developing nation. Had we done more earlier to help support the cost of coping with AIDS and other illnesses and fought to reduce the price of treatment, the denialist diversion might never have happened. Misinformation and false solutions have a way of filling the vacuum when too little is done to solve a problem. The real work of stopping AIDS in Africa and other developing regions is just beginning. We must all do our part.

While the 13th International Conference on AIDS may not have offered as much new science of interest to western patients, it may offer the beginning of hope for tens of millions of people thus far left behind. Governments, companies, researchers and activists must now offer whatever help they can. (A special issue of PI Perspective will shortly follow this one summarizing research highlights from the meeting.)

Then these should all be easy to refute... 23.Jun.2004 14:57


The HIV=AIDS unproven hypthesis falls short in these 100 ways:

Since you claim these are "disproven" and call them "canards" then please do so. Your above comment does not do any such thing. Please address the glaring errors of the AIDS apologists in the link above.

hey GS 24.Jun.2004 03:55


instead of shoving a hundred links down our throats, why don't you, yourself, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, explain what's wrong with the following:

HIV is a sexually transmitted disease that attacks the body's immune system. After a certain number of T-cells are destroyed, the disease enters a second phase, known as AIDS. AIDS is where the body is completely defenseless against even minor illness, and things like common colds are paralyzing.

If you can't grasp the concept of a disease having multiple stages (that seems to be the crux of AIDS denial), consider syphillis. Part one: painful urination. Part two: blindness, insanity, and possibly death. People know they're caused by the same STD.

The reason why there's two terms for HIV/AIDS is that the term Auto Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome was coined for this phenomenon before they discovered the sexually-transmitted disease, Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

Ahh fuck it, I'm just wasting my time trying to argue with the likes of you.

ALSO: Who the hell put this thread in the center newsbar-thingy (or whatever you call it)? AIDS deniers don't NEED any more exposure, especially if you're going to use their quotes.

Here's what is wrong with your BS corporate science - it is 100% unproven 24.Jun.2004 12:45


A new medical definition (Idiopathic CD4+ T-cell lymphocytopenia) was created to avoid the fact that AIDS occurs in the absence of HIV

HIV does not satisfy Koch's postulates, the criteria that must be met in order to prove that a microbe causes a disease

Anti-HIV drugs, including protease inhibitors, destroy T-cells

Recreational drugs (heroin, poppers, crystal meth, ecstasy, cocaine) reduce CD4 cell numbers

HIV positive patients recover after they stop taking drugs

Recreational drugs cause AIDS-defining diseases

Anti-HIV drugs cause AIDS-defining diseases

Anti-HIV drugs inhibit human enzymes

HIV positive Africans in dire poverty in Uganda and no access to anti-HIV drugs lived as long as HIV positives in the west who took anti-HIV drugs

There are no comparative studies of survival in HIV negatives and combo-free HIV positive heterosexuals with no other risk factors

Only 38% of healthy long-term positives had ever used AZT or other nuleoside analogs Compared with 94% of progressors

Decreases in AIDS cases preceded the introduction of new drug treatments (Dec 1995) by three full years

Anti-HIV drugs have anti-microbial effects

The introduction of AZT (1987) did not cause a decline in the AIDS death rate

In the only long term trial of AZT (The Concorde study) 172 participants died, 169 while taking AZT, 3 while on placebo

Nucleoside analog drugs suppress/destroy the bone marrow where all immune system cells are born

HIV+ children born to AZT treated mothers had a higher probability of developing severe disease or severe immunsuppression

"Drug holidays" recover immune responses

AZT caused the same transient increase in CD4 count in HIV negatives as in HIV positives

There are no controlled studies showing that AIDS occurs in the absence of all other possible non-HIV causal factors

Long-living, healthy, drug-free HIV positives are mostly ignored by AIDS researchers

Apart from the early (fraudulent) AZT studies and the Concorde study no efficacy studies compare drugs with placebo

There are well documented, non-HIV causes for every AIDS disease

The incidence of AIDS-defining diseases among Western non-drug users has not been shown to exceed national backgrounds

Early AIDS coincided with the cumulative effects of unprecedented, intense use of volatile nitrite (poppers) as an aphrodisiac marketed almost exclusively to homosexuals

AIDS can be treated effectively without anti-HIV drugs

On average, viral load overestimates infectious HIV by a factor of 60,000

Even a PCR method that can detect 1 infected cell in 100000 found very little HIV DNA in HIV positives

HIV could not be cultured from people with a detectable viral load

HIV has never been properly isolated

After many billions of dollars of research effort over 20 years, HIV scientists still cannot explain how HIV causes AIDS

After many billions of dollars of research effort over 20 years there is no vaccine and no cure, there are only toxic drugs

There was no increase in HIV seroprevalence outside risk groups in the UK despite record STD rates and teenage pregnancy rates

HIV DNA was found to be constant from the time of seroconversion, but CD4 count continually went down

CD4 count goes down and viral load goes up while on the anti-HIV drugs

AZT is hardly triphosphorylated by the body so it cannot possibly have an anti-HIV effect

AZT has no effect on HIV DNA but makes viral load (HIV RNA) go down

Research throughout the 1970s showed that retroviruses do not kill cells

HIV antibody tests give repeated false positives and seroreversions can occur

HIV tests involve an arbitrary dilution factor, everyone tests positive (because of nonspecific antibody binding) if their serum is undiluted

All the proteins used in the HIV test are associated with retroviral genes that are found naturally (endogenous) in all humans

Endogenous retroviruses can generate immune responses in humans

None of the HIV proteins tested for have been proven to belong to HIV

There are over 60 different conditions, including pregnancy, that have been known to generate false positives on the HIV test

The Elisa, Western Blot and PCR tests for HIV all carry disclaimers nullifying their detection of HIV

The criteria for HIV-positivity used in the antibody tests varies between countries and between organizations within a country and can produce indeterminate (neither positive or negative) results

The viral load test gives false negatives

The viral load test gives false positives

The viral load test has low reproducibility

Direct measurements showed no correlation between viral load and CD4 count

Many conditions cause reduced CD4 counts

CD4 counts between 200 and 300 have been observed in healthy HIV negatives

There are no studies comparing CD4 cell variations in combo-free HIV positives (with no risk factors) and HIV negatives

According to the AIDS establishment, a heterosexual AIDS "epidemic" of African origin started off in the West as a homosexual "epidemic"

In 1985 HIV incidence in Southern Africa was confined to homosexuals who had been to the US and those who had had sex with them

The USA was found to be the world's most sexually promiscuous nation

Condoms (made from polyisoprene) have holes in much larger than HIV

Reducing STD incidence in Africa did not reduce the rate of HIV seroconversion

Only a minute proportion of Africans have actually been tested for HIV, seroprevalence estimates are derived from extrapolations based on unrepresentative samples from maternity clinics

In Africa a single positive ELISA test or even a single "rapid" (saliva/urine) test is considered proof of HIV infection, "proof" in the developed world requires a series of tests

HIV seroprevalence was found to be much lower in South African prisons than in the general population

The vast majority of African "AIDS patients" tested HIV negative

In "AIDS ravaged" Zambia since 1980 the population has increased and even the rate of increase in population has increased

In "AIDS ravaged" South Africa many coffin makers are either doing a slack trade or have gone out of business

The total number of AIDS cases in Africa consists almost entirely of estimated cases rather than known, registered cases

PCP is the typical AIDS defining disease in Western adults but it is almost entirely confined to young children in Africa

There is no Western heterosexual AIDS epidemic

IVDUs who consistently used a clean needle exchange program were 10.2 to 22.9 times MORE likely to test HIV positive than nonusers

Non-human primates "progress" to AIDS (SAIDS) much quicker than humans do

SIV does not cause SAIDS in wild primate populations

SIV seroprevalence is too low in wild primate populations to account for SIV resistance in these populations

Until the early 1930s many thousands of European men received transplants from chimpanzees and did not get AIDS

One thousand medical staff a year accidentally contract hepatitis from needles yet by 1998 there were no documented cases of surgeons or emergency medical technicians/paramedics getting AIDS, or even HIV, from occupational exposure

All AIDS patients have lowered levels of glutathione, the major water soluble intracellular antioxidant

Rectally deposited sperm can be immunosuppressive, mitogenic, oxidizing and a stimulator of antigen production

Low T-cell counts were shown to occur before HIV seroconversion and to predict seroconversion

HIV-like genetic sequences have been found in the HIV negative human genome

Epitopes of HIV regulatory proteins tat, rev and nef are expressed in normal human tissue

HIV showed over 40% variation in an essential gene (protease) sequence

Foreign protein transfusions were found to be immune suppressive

Hemophiliacs can have hypergammaglobulinaemia which can cause false HIV positive test results

Up to 99.9% of HIV genomes in plasma may be defective

Mortality in hemophiliacs began to increase in exactly the same year they began taking AZT

The AIDS risk of hemophiliacs on AZT was 4.5 times higher, and mortality 2.4 times higher, than untreated controls

HIV theorists have made incorrect predictions throughout the HIV era

AIDS spreads non-exponentially, unlike infectious disease

Put all of these factors together and you have an imp[ossibility that AIDS is sexually transmittable. HIV appears to have little or nothing to do with AIDS. Most all of the corporate AIDS apologists' science has proven to be self-promoting drug sales and fearmongering.

Your reaction to the information I have provided is to express the impossibility of reasoning "with the likes of you [me]" which effectively dehumanizes me. Your whole tactic seems to be, rather than discuss the science, to attack any AIDS dissenters personally as "idiotic" and "dangerous" without saying WHY we are either of those things. Apparently it is YOU who cannot carry on a conversation about this subject without resorting to personal insults.

This whole thread has laid out many cogent arguments why I believe as I do. Immunosuppression is real. We both agree about that. But while you think it is caused by a possibly real retrovirus (and that has not been proven), I believe in what I see: that those who use poppers, hard drugs, too many antibiotics, AZT, "cocktail" remedies, are the ones who suffer immunosuppression. Immunosuppression has existed before the media creation of AIDS. It existed before poppers were marketed to gay men. It existed before widespread IV drug use.

Why do prostitutes have the same AIDS rates as the normal population? Except for prostitutes who use illegal IV drugs, and then the AIDS rates are higher. Gee, go figure. The expectable immunosuppression that comes from habitual heroin/meth/cocaine use is a factor. Meanwhile, prostitutes have a lower level of AIDS than the general population, which suggests that AIDS is not a sexually transmitted disease. Every other STD, prostitutes have a much higher rate than the general population. Because those STDs have been proven to be sexually transmittable. Gonnorhea has a tranmit rate of 1 in 3 sex acts to transmit the disease. Meanwhile heterosexual AIDS has an over 1 in 1,000 sex acts for it to transmit? And that is coming from the corporate scientists who actually believe that AIDS is sexually transmittable. There is no "epidemic" of AIDS amongst heterosexuals having SEX, but there IS immunosupression amongst gay males who use POPPERS. Meanwhile, HIV exists without AIDS and AIDS regularly exists without HIV positivity.

I know you might not want to rethink, learn new facts, read up, etc. But "shoving links down our [your] throats" is how you learn. If you want to. Or you can obediently parrot the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry and see to it that thousands of trusting gay men get killed by an uncaring industry. Crimes of obedience (war, fascism) are far more numerous and dangerous than crimes of disobedience. Think for yourself. Question what you were told. Hundreds of medical doctors and PhDs are already firmly against the unproven and lethally harmful HIV=AIDS hypothesis.

Check this out: How the Chronicle Invented AIDS 24.Jun.2004 15:17

George Trinkaus tesla@teslapress.com

How the Chronicle Invented AIDS, by George Trinkaus is posted at


AIDS is not a disease but a campaign.

Am I missing something? 24.Jun.2004 17:15


I googled Kimberly Bergalis and all that came up was stuff saying that her dentist gave it to her. Is there missing info that makes your point better? Please provide.

bleh 25.Jun.2004 04:46


Damn, this is just like arguing economics with a "lassiez-faire" capitalist. Talk theory, they'll flood you with their own stacked deck; talk facts and other historic data, they'll claim they don't exist (or quickly change the subject). Either way, they walk away feeling their heartlessness is justified.

Speaking about a flood of statistics, is it REALLY necessary to make each one of your "facts" its own paragraph (and you didn't even source them)? Sorry I have to be the slow kid at the back of the classroom, but I guess I'm still "brainwashed" by the corporate media into believing this "fearmongering pseudoscience designed to sell drugs".

The thing is, though, I don't owe you any courtesy. There's a whole lot of disinformation put out about AIDS (like this: in some parts of Africa, the locals believe that you can cure yourself of AIDS if you rape a virgin. Guess what happens to the rape survivor?), all of which prevent ANYTHING from being done about it. YOU may not care, since you don't even believe it exists, but it has dire consequences for the rest of us- witness Thabo Mbeki.


your dogmatic aversion to information is appalling to me 25.Jun.2004 13:42


I am doing no harm. You are. By encouraging people to believe the basis-less HIV=AIDS dogma, you are dooming people to die. When they test positive for HIV (all humans have HIV in their genetic codes, and some proteins will bely this in tests), then they will falsely believe that they will develop AIDS. Then they will take harmful, killer drugs. Then they will die because of the drugs they take.

I fully understand the dogma that AIDS apologists such as yourself propagate. If you cared to examine the facts, which you don't, strangely enough, then you would come to the same conclusion that hundreds of experts have: that the AIDS religion has no basis in facts. Your only argument seems to be a childish refuting of all thinking or investigation on your part, coupled with a basis-less accusation that, by studying the FACTS, I am sowhow being harmful.

Seriously, this can not be any real kind of discussion as long as you keep saying "Yer high-falutin book-larnin ain't gunna fool me none!" and bury your head in the sand again. Science is always a religion (read Thomas Kuhn's STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS about the very unscientific "science" world and how scientists dogmatically protect their turf regardless of facts).

In the previous comment, I didn't give sources for my facts because I has ALREADY provided you with a link to the top 100 inconsistencies of your precious AIDS religion. Follow the link and READ what I posted along with their sources, every one of them. No wonder you believe as you do: you demand to be baby-fed any and all information, including your beliefs. That is the surest way to be duped time and time again. I presume you are an adult?

The fact that you consider this some kind of personal 'you vs. me' argument is also bizarre. It's not about you or me. We don't matter. It's about people who are dying. You don't owe me a thing: you owe it to anyone you give your harmful propaganda to - to learn more about what AIDS actually is and how it really acts.