HIV/AIDS Denialism: A Timeline

The English author Richard Wilson and I have been chatting about the history and motivations of HIV/AIDS deniers, and he has been kind enough to donate this quick run-down of events (which I am posting below). Be sure to check out Richard’s blog and his new book “Don’t Get Fooled Again” (which, unfortunately, is only available through Amazon UK at the moment). I also invite any folks on the “other side” of this issue to send me their run-down of key events, and I will post it here as well.

Here is Richard’s perspective:

  • The virologist Peter Duesberg is where a lot of it starts, back in 1987 – he’s the main theorist that comes up with the long words to make AIDS denialism sound like a genuine theory. I honestly don’t know what’s driving him but Science Magazine did a detailed investigation into his work some years ago which was quite interesting:http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/266-5191-1642a.pdf – and there’s a rather less flattering portrayal here:  http://www.aidstruth.org/documents/Malignant-Narcissism.pdf
  • Then there’s Caspar Schmidt (or at least there was). Even further back, in 1984, he proposes that AIDS doesn’t exist at all, and it’s actually an “epidemic of shame induced depression” brought on among the gay population by Reaganite conservatism (I kid you not:  http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/csfantasy.htm). He gives us something of a clue as to the motivations of the denialists. Many of them are/were HIV positive, and were also diagnosed at a relatively early stage of the epidemic, when the treatments were practically useless and it was a virtual death sentence. Can’t face the fact that you’re v. likely to die within 5-10 years? Make up a theory that says it’s all a big delusion/conspiracy. Schmidt did OK on that — he finally died in the mid 1990s.
  • Then we have the first big AIDS drug, AZT. But it doesn’t do much but delay the inevitable, and the side effects are often quite nasty. This is where it really gets evil. Duesberg claims that people are actually dying BECAUSE they are taking AZT, and claims that they’d otherwise be perfectly well, because HIV is in fact a harmless retrovirus.
  • Then it gets complicated. Around the early-mid 1990s, all these anti-retroviral drugs start coming on stream that really seem to work. People who’d been sick with AIDS start getting better. But a lot of these HIV+ denialists (google Hugh Christie and Jody Wells) are so far down the road, and so caught up in their theories, that it’s very hard for them to pull back. So they deny that the drugs are actually curing people, and propose all these other “natural remedies” like homeopathy and nutritional supplements.
  • Then it gets more complicated still. Around 1999/2000 President Thabo Mbeki gets wind of AIDS ‘scepticism’ and does a lot of googling. He reads all this eloquent and well argued, yet totally bogus and fraudulent stuff on virusmyth.net about aids drugs being poison, AIDS not really existing, HIV tests being circular or unreliable etc. and gets convinced that there’s a serious issue to be considered. So we have the South African “Presidential AIDS advisory panel” consisting of 50% scientists, and 50% radio-ga-ga nutjobs. And the denialists come up with another spin on AIDS which is that it’s a racist conspiracy by the West to demonise and subjigate black people and make loads of money.
  • Then Matthias Rath steps into the mix. If I had to bet on it I’d say that he’s pretty much in sociopath territory and just sees this as a way to make money and gain power:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/sep/12/matthias.rath.aids.south.africa
  • I think there may now be a bit of a cognitive dissonance thing going on — a bit like the famous UFO salvation cult that actually became more fanatical when the prophesised UFO appearance failed to materialise. These guys are under siege from the evidence, and more and more of them keep dying (see:  http://www.aidstruth.org/new/denialism/dead_denialists).
 Much thanks to Richard for the explainations and links.

15 Responses

  1. Tyson Koska ,

    I see you are asking a few basic science questions in the other “denialist” thread. They have all been answered at the Newstatesman:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2008/09/evidence-sceptic-hiv-bogus

    If you read this, it will also become clear to you that RIchard Wilson is hardly an authority on anything relating to these matters.

    Assusming that you are genuinely interested in understanding this debate, please understand that you are asking the wrong questions.

    You cannot ask for proof of the extraordinary claim that HIV does not cause AIDS. In science one does not provide proof of a negative. The scientifically correct approach is to ask for proof of the extraordinary claim that HIV DOES cause AIDS. If such a proof is not forthcoming, or can be falsified in each case, the HIV/AIDS theory has been disprocven.

  2. I am asking for proof that all of the scientists who are in agreement are wrong. I am asking for proof that the pharma companies are acting in collusion with the entire medical community to deceive the public. I am not asking for anyone to prove a negative. The extraordinary claim is that so many people are so wrong… that would be truly extraordinary… what would make some folks believe that so passionately, what is the evidence?

  3. Tyson Koska,

    I repeat, your questions have been answered on Newstatesman. If you do not want to go there and read the answers, you can ask specific question here, and I’ll copy-paste the answers. from that thread.

    To ask proof that those who are in agreement are wrong is not a correct question either. I can falsify a theory; shared beliefs, herd mentality, conspiracies are issues separate from the question of scientific proof.

    it is not extraordinary that so many people are wrong. A brief glance at the history of science or religion will show you that.

    You’re quoting Nietzsche to the effect that all philosphers have been dogmatists (moralists) and approached Truth with little understanding of the nature of Truth, and yet it is difficult for you to deal with the concept that scientific consensus can be wrong?

    Once again, if I can falsify a theory, I don’t need to explain why people are believing in it or why they are promoting it. I can offer explanations for that as well, but those will not settle the original question.

  4. Macdonald,

    My point is that I there is something deeper in this discussion—that is, how do we know what to believe in a modern society—on what do “regular” people, non-experts, non-professionals put their trust—especially since, as you have pointed out, there are many motivations for deception (not all of which are malicious)?

    You point out that “science” has been wrong in the past. That is true, but if one takes an inventory of scientific achievement, it is not as if each generation overthrows itself (although this does happen from time to time). The achievements of science are more like a camera lens further ratcheting down its focus—bringing things into sharper and sharper focus. Newton proposed laws of gravity that worked for the level of “clarity” that science was able to achieve at the time. Einstein’s theories replaced Newton’s, the focus was tightened, but Newton is still “right” for the objects he was working with…

    This kind of trust in science and scientific achievement seems to me deserved, because everyday I can enjoy the fruit of science, that is, technology. I know that science has proved itself, people live longer, I can watch TV, I can communicate with you from the guts of Penn Station, NY as I am doing right now… all of these are the fruits of science, therefore, I have a certain trust in science…

    Now you raise the notion, that it is the facts which science has wrong, and I contend that I (at minimum) cannot make that judgment. Even when I read the “evidence” provided by your links, I cannot evaluate the claims. Furthermore, all kinds of folks dispute all kinds of things and they willingly give you lots of reasons to believe them—but I don’t have the expertise… there are people out there making all sorts of arguments that seem logical or reasonable, 9/11 “Truthers”, Intelligent Design proponents, Moon-Landing deniers, Grassy Knollists, UFOlogists… and if one listens to them, many of their arguments seem compelling, but I’m not going to buy any off it because as far as I can tell they haven’t given me any good reasons to accept them… they have provided only pseudo-scientific language that I am incapable of critiquing…

    When it gets down to it, these folks are asking others to take their opinion “on faith.” When I use the word faith I mean, to believe without or in spite of the evidence. This is true in this case because I am not a virologist… who am I going to trust? Well, virologists. Furthermore, I am going to trust the scientific community as a whole, and when I say trust I mean, to believe based on past evidence of truth or success. This is the same reason I don’t believe Priests, Shaman, Rabbis, Ministers, or Witch Doctors. If they had the same success in developing technology or other proof of their theories, I would probably believe them… but to my knowledge, their success in this regard is just not there…

    Which just brings me back to the beginning, I (and a lot of other folks) are willing to listen… but arbitrary claims that are disputed by 90+% of the “professionals” is just not going to sway me. You all may turn out to be right (as might any other of the fringe folks making fantastic claims). And you know who is going to prove you or anyone else right? It’s going to be the scientists.

  5. You are free to take any position you want, but in that case it is dishonest to ask rethinkers of proofs, since nothing I could say would qualify per definition.

    However, I submit to you, like I did to Richard Wilson, that your position is pure science-ism – scientific theocracy.

    i can only point out your several fallacies:

    1. Your faith in science is based on success. You are ignoring that science has many more failures than succeses. It is in fact far more likely that any scientific position or theory is wrong than right. Here is a perfect analogy:

    WWI and WWII were fairly sucessful (past success). The Iraq War is probably going to be won conclusively sooner or later (assurance of future success). Does that mean you would consider 100 years mired in Iraq a success? Does that mean that there are no better alternatives? Does that mean those wars couldn’t have been fought far more efficiently, assuming they were necessary?

    2. You equate science with the institutions of science – a classic fallacy.

    The essence of dissidence is to protest when scientific institutions depart from the ways of science.
    HIV/AIDS rehtinkers are not anti-science or anti-reason. To the contrary. They are no different in this respect than other grassroots, who expose flaws in our democracy; who helped end the Vietnam War, who fought and fight for equal rights for Blacks, gays and women. Every protest threatening the establishment will be called undemocratic, unpatriotic, dangerous, irresponsible, irrational etc.

    Dissidence is the essence of science as it is the essence of democracy.

    3. You imagine science as something characterized by intrinsic steady progress, then confer that characteristic onto the institutions of science wholesale. Science is better viewed as something which takes off down a wrong path and gets more and more lost, perhaps over the course of decades, until the situation becomes untenable and it abruptly takes off down a different path. The current institutions, intricately caugh up with great political and financial interests, even more so.

    4. You cannot arbitrarily impose your own criterion of succes on alternative world views. Who is to say shamans and rabbis, or rather the world views they (are supposed to) represent as opposed to the institutions they might be part of, are not successful after their own measure?

    If you think science has a monopoly on Truth, you have read Nietzsche with a blind eye

  6. Tyson, you said: “all of these are the fruits of science,”

    so far, you really do disappoint.

    You wrongly attribute all modern life and comfort strictly to scientists, when the fact is that likely most of the most significant inventions of modern man came about far from those in the “educated” halls of science. Many overall uneducated guys in garages and working for wages in industry invented or built or improved on nearly all existing technologies, including aircraft that you flew and personal computers such as you are now using. It was farmers who invented and improved tractors and it was the inventors in garages that created many if not most of the most successful of the inventions that led to the more comfortable and well fed world we now live in.

    For a moment, I deluded myself, and thought you might actually hunker yourself down and investigate before yapping your political disease causality preferences, but your post above clearly states where you currently are and where you currently intend to stay, so there is not much point in discussing any of it with you further.

    I thought perhaps you were above the: “I don’t know so I will leave it to a consensus of lab-coats to think for me” School of Theoscientology.

    Obviously, I was mistaken.

    Of scientific consensus, Michael Crichton said:

    “The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus… There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

  7. Michael,

    I don’t know where all of this personal animosity toward me comes from, or why such attacks are warranted. It seems to me that you find emotional manipulation a useful tool and wield it with skill and abandon… In any case, I’m not interested in that sort of discussion.

    Macdonald,

    I think you raise some good points, and I hope you stick around long enough so that we can continue this discussion… but i don’t have time at the moment to put together the kind of thoughtful response i would like… will post later…

  8. Since my points are general, not confined to the HIV-AIDS debate, they’ll keep. We can continue the discussion in this or another context.

    Points 1-3 are about science. The last point is science vs. other “modes”. It is not part of the HIV/AIDS debate, which is strictly science vs. science.

    Still, Duesberg’s papers are examples of some of the most rigorous and elegant pieces of reasoning in virology and cancer research. Even people who don’t agree with his conclusions hold papers up as models of scientific argument.

    That includes me.

  9. You are right about points 1-3 being able to “keep”, so i will just quickly say that you mis-characterize my position when you call it “science-ism”… if you want to brand it as anything, perhaps the term “probable-ism” might be better… You repeatedly question my understanding of Nietzsche, but also ignore it when I say things like, “You all may turn out to be right”… What I am saying (and what I believe is part of the scientific method), is that truth hides and truth presents “surfaces”… revision is always a possibility…

    When Michael writes, “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” That sentence seems to me a false dichotomy. While consensus may not “justify” science, something may, in fact, be both good-science and reach a consensus (and I am assuming a consensus among scientists). There is a free-market going on in “science” — for grant money, for status, for fame — just as in any other field, scientists are working to be the “first,” they often treat other scientists as foes and are competitive even among those with whom they are “agree”… there is no monolithic “science”… it is a field with many personalities, ethics, motivations, desires, etc…

    I wasn’t being disingenuous when i asked for proof or evidence. I wanted to see what you had. If you had demonstrated that a significant debate in scientific journals and literature was raging, that would have been, i think, convincing evidence. Of course your point is that such debate is being stifled and repressed — but then we are left with the same problem, where is the evidence for that?

    I am simply trying to understand, but you have to see that from my outside perspective, this all sounds like so-much conspiracy theorizing… again, you all may be correct in your assertions, but i can’t discern that based on the evidence i have seen. You may throw that right back at me and say i haven’t investigated enough — ok, that’s fair… but, honestly, the kind of naked assertions that are being made are either way to simple (“they” are all in on it) or way to complex (Persistently low CD4 cell count – HIV = (for instance) idiopathic CD+ t-lymphocytopenia.)…

    You can “blame” me for not taking the time to educate myself on the nuances of the arguments, that’s fine. But you may also want to consider the perceptions of the folks you are trying to convince. It seems to me the best way to go forward is to get your supporters to organize and produce results the substantiate your positions… I just find it so hard to believe that if you are right, you can’t find more young and eager scientists in the field to lead that charge… that is the most difficult thing to believe about all of this…

  10. Tyson Koska,

    There is plenty of HIV/AIDS dissidence in peer-reviewed journals. Ther ws also a debate in Nature between Peter Duesberg and Harvey Bialy on one side and the AIDS establisment on the other. It was cut short, therefore inconclusive. But the establishment was behind on points. How can I say that? Because the almost immediately had to resort to proclaiming new and unique mystical properties of HIV. Explaining an unknown with an unknown is not not good science.

    As for the rest, theonly one talking about conspiracies is you. I don’t know where you got that from. Richard Wilson?

    Sometimes it gets a little tiresome to go though this again and again. It really is Science studies 101. As promised I’ll treat you to excerpts from the Newstatesman.

    It is simply a fact that there are various pressure groups and powerful individuals who do everything they can to silence dissenters. Does it mean they’re conspiring to cover up something they know is a lie? I have no idea, but it’s not relevant either. The fact is they’re doing what they are doing, crusading against “denialists” and doing everything they can to exclude them from the debate. Here’s the Nestatesman:

    “Mr. Wilson, I can see you continue your AIDStruth talking points about conspiracies and/or prodigous stupidity of the “experts”. Where great financial, political, social interests are at stake, you don’t need conspiracies to explain mistakes; you need only convergence of those interests and an initial misstep. How does such a misstep come about? Well, there’s a good chance if you hire a hammer to identify a problem, you will soon be told that your problem looks like a nail. When over-funded cancer virologists look at AIDS, chances are they’re going to find a retrovirus somewhere.

    Retrovirology is an arcane science. There are not that many professionals with the wherewithal to check or question the findings of this largely biotech driven enterprise. Millions of people in the AIDS industry the world over are relying on the scientific integrity and genius of a select few.

    This is not, excuse the pun, rocket science, and you are not having this discussion with a layman when it comes to philosophy, sociology and politics of science. Am I?

    Look at it this way then: The case for Iraqi WMDs also looked convincing to many people the world over. Were all Western democracies in on the conspiracy? Hardly. When something hinges on privileged, esoteric knowledge backed by vested interest, you don’t need conspiracies.” [End quote]

  11. Tyson Koska wrote:
    “I wasn’t being disingenuous when i asked for proof or evidence. I wanted to see what you had. If you had demonstrated that a significant debate in scientific journals and literature was raging, that would have been, i think, convincing evidence. Of course your point is that such debate is being stifled and repressed — but then we are left with the same problem, where is the evidence for that? ”

    Tyson, my question is: Where is the virus? Thats all we dissidents want to know. Don’t show me models or electron micrographs of cellular debris. Please show me a purified electron micrograph of pure hiv. I have a friend that will give you $50000
    if you can provide proof.

    Alive & Well $50,000 Fact Finder Award
    Find One Study, Save Countless Lives
    Non-profit education, research and support network offers money in exchange for missing science
    PDF
    http://www.AliveandWell.org
    Tel 877-411-AIDS, 818-780-1875

    Alive & Well will present a cash award of $25,000 to the first person to locate a study that provides us with the missing scientific proof that HIV tests are accurate. To celebrate this important finding, Alive and Well will donate an additional $25,000 to Heifer International, a unique charity working to end hunger in the developing world by using a holistic approach to building sustainable communities.

    The missing evidence we’re looking for is a study published in a peer reviewed medical journal that shows the validation of any HIV test by the direct isolation of HIV from the fresh, uncultured fluids or tissues of positive testing persons.

    Since no HIV test directly detects HIV itself, and since the tests currently used to diagnose HIV infection rely on surrogate markers such as antibodies or genetic material, a study should exist somewhere in the published medical literature which shows that at least one type of surrogate test for HIV has been validated for accuracy by the direct isolation of HIV itself from people who test antibody, RNA or DNA positive.

    The $50,000 offered through Alive & Well will be paid by two anonymous donors committed to the possibility of integrity in AIDS science and to creating a world in which no one goes hungry. Award funds will be disbursed within 30 days of presentation of the required evidence as described above.

    For each month the award remains uncollected, Alive & Well founder Christine Maggiore, will make a personal donation to Heifer International (http://www.heifer.org) whose work resolves the most prevalent causes of disease and death in Africa: poverty and malnutrition.

    The Fact Finder Award expires on April 23, 2009, the 25-year anniversary of the historic announcement by the US Department of Health and Human Services that HIV had been found and identified as “the probable cause of AIDS.”

    Potential participants should note that detection of other surrogate markers not specifically mentioned in this text (reverse transcriptase, p24, etc) or the presence of “retrovirus-like particles” in co-culture do not substitute for evidence of direct isolation of HIV from fresh, uncultured fluids or tissues.

    Can a study that validates HIV tests really be missing from the medical literature?

    That’s what we want to find out. It‚s been 23 years since the discovery of HIV and the development and marketing of the HIV antibody test, yet it appears that no study ever validated HIV tests by the direct purification of HIV from persons who test positive or have a “viral load.” As far as we can tell, the accuracy of the HIV antibody tests used around the world to say someone is infected with HIV has never been properly established, and there’s no information in the published medical literature showing how many positive tests occur in the absence of infection with HIV.

    What would a validation study prove?

    The accuracy of an antibody or other surrogate test for a virus can only be established by verifying that positive results are found exclusively in people who actually have the virus. This standard for determining accuracy was not met in 1984 when the first HIV antibody test was developed. To this day, positive HIV antibody screening tests (ELISAs) are verified by a second antibody test of unknown accuracy (HIV Western Blots) or by “viral load,” another unvalidated test that detects bits of genetic material (RNA or DNA) that are thought to be associated with the virus.

    A validation study would prove the ethical and scientific basis for the practice of telling people who test antibody, DNA or RNA positive that they are infected with HIV. Without evidence of validation by direct purification of the virus, a diagnosis of HIV infection rests on unverified beliefs and unfounded assumptions.

    Is a validation study worth $50,000?

    To us, $50,000 is a small price to pay for scientific validation that HIV tests give positive results only to people who actually have the virus.

    Current HIV tests signal the presence of antibodies that react with an assortment of proteins associated with HIV, however, none of these proteins are unique or specific to HIV. Without a validation study, no honest, well-informed doctor can say with any degree of certainty that someone who tests positive is indeed infected with HIV.

    Why can’t “viral load” tests be used to validate HIV antibody tests?

    Like HIV antibody tests, viral load tests are not able to directly detect HIV itself. Instead, these tests detect only fragments of genetic material (DNA or RNA) associated with HIV. To date, we have not found a study showing that the DNA or RNA attributed to HIV is found only in people who are actually infected with HIV using direct isolation as a gold standard to determine true infection.

    In fact, viral load tests carry disclaimers stating they are “not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic to confirm the presence of HIV infection” (Roche, Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Test).

    Why isn’t an antibody test that’s verified by another antibody test good enough to say someone is infected with HIV?

    The rationale for the use of antibody tests is that the immune system has the ability to detect foreign agents or viruses and to respond by producing antibodies that react with those agents or viruses. However, this rationale does not work in reverse. That is, the observation of an antibody reaction with a particular agent or virus does not prove that the antibody was produced in response to that particular agent or virus.

    The problem with using antibodies alone to indicate infection with a particular agent or virus is twofold:

    1. Antibodies can only be associated with a disease after it is shown that they are consistently generated after exposure to the pure virus. We are unaware that this has ever been accomplished with HIV.

    2. Antibodies engage in indiscriminate relationships with a variety of agents or viruses. One could say that antibodies are “promiscuous,” that is, antibodies meant for one agent or virus may react with another agent or virus that is a perfect stranger. Or, to put it technically, there is ample evidence that antibody molecules, even the most pure (monoclonal antibodies) are not mono-specific, and that they cross-react with other, non-immunizing antigens.

    What does all this mean?

    What this means is that people do not necessarily have the virus that their antibodies may appear to suggest they have. Here are some examples of how misleading antibody tests can be:

    1. People can have positive antibody responses to certain laboratory chemicals, but this does not mean they are infected with laboratory chemicals.

    2. People vaccinated for polio may test positive for antibodies to polio even though they don‚t have polio.

    3. People exposed to TB may test antibody positive for TB but this does not necessarily mean they are currently infected with TB.

    4. The test for glandular fever measures antibody response to red blood cells of sheep and horses, but a positive test does not mean that someone is infected with sheep or horse blood, or that animal blood causes glandular fever.

    From these few examples, we understand why antibody response alone cannot determine if someone is infected with a particular virus.

    What’s the solution to the problems with HIV antibody tests?

    Since antibody reactions can come from more than one possible cause, scientists need more information before they can claim that an antibody reaction alone means a person is actually infected with a particular virus. Long before the HIV test was introduced into routine clinical practice, scientists needed to prove that a positive test means that HIV itself is present, too. This is especially important given the profound implications of testing HIV positive. People‚s lives literally depend on the specificity of HIV tests.

    What is specificity?

    In this case, the formal, mathematical definition of specificity is the number of negative tests in a large group of individuals who do not have HIV infection. If 100% of 1,000 people who do not have HIV infection also test antibody negative, the specificity of the antibody test is 100%. If one uninfected person tests antibody positive, the specificity of the test is reduced to 99.9% (999/1000) due to the single false positive result. A high specificity is desired when screening to make sure that very few false positives occur.

    As far as we know, the specificity of HIV tests has not been established in this very necessary scientific manner.

    What is sensitivity?

    The formal, mathematical definition of sensitivity is the number of positive tests in a large group of individuals who actually do have HIV infection. If 100% of 1,000 people who have HIV infection also test antibody positive, the sensitivity of the antibody test is 100%. If one infected person tests antibody negative, the sensitivity of the test is reduced to 99.9% (999/1000) due to the single false negative result. A high sensitivity is desired when you don’t want any gold standard positives to slip through undetected.

    Is specificity the same as accuracy? How is the accuracy for an HIV test determined?

    A study that establishes the sensitivity and specificity of an HIV test would provide a scientific basis for claims of accuracy.

    Sensitivity + Specificity = Accuracy

    How did AIDS experts arrive at the specificity of the HIV antibody tests used today?

    According to the medical literature on AIDS, the specificity of HIV antibody tests has been evaluated by testing healthy individuals such as blood donors. Because these individuals are healthy, it’s assumed that negative antibody test results mean they don’t have HIV, and because few if any of these people test positive, AIDS experts use this information to claim that the antibody tests are highly specific. This evaluation is the wrong type of experiment from which to draw such conclusions for two reasons.

    First, healthy people do not have a large number or a variety of antibodies to react with the test, so there are not enough antibodies available to measure the propensity for unwanted reactions. Second, good health cannot be used as a substitute measure for the absence of HIV infection any more than good health can be used as a substitute measure for the absence of kidney stones, pregnancy, cerebral aneurysms, pathogenic bacteria or coronary artery disease.

    What is the correct solution to the problem of distinguishing who is and who is not HIV infected?

    According to Dr Valendar Turner (http://www.theperthgroup.com), a medical doctor who has examined the problems with HIV tests, “The solution is obvious, scientifically speaking. You have to use HIV itself to validate the tests. To do this, you must take two samples from each person in a study and divide the two blood samples from each person in two groups: One sample to test for the antibody reactions and the other to try to directly isolate HIV. To know what the HIV antibody tests tell you about HIV infection, you then compare the reactions (positive tests) with what you are trying to find or measure (actual virus). The only way to distinguish between real reactions and false reactions (cross-reactions) is to use direct isolation of HIV as an independent yardstick or gold standard.”

    What would the results of such an isolation experiment show?

    The results of such an experiment would show how many of an appropriately chosen group people from whom HIV cannot be isolated have a positive antibody reaction anyway. This would tell us how many positive antibody tests occur in the absence of HIV infection.

    Without validation by direct isolation of the virus from the fresh, uncultured fluids or tissues of people who test positive, AIDS experts cannot know what positive and negative test results actually indicate.

    That there appears to be no data establishing the accuracy of HIV tests is particularly concerning given that people who test positive are said to be infected with a fatal, incurable virus and treated as if this were an indisputable truth.

    Why is it called a Fact Finder Award?

    What we want to find meets the dictionary definition of a fact*, which is:

    1. Something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened.

    2. The truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something.

    3. A piece of information that shows that statistics or statements are true.

    4. The circumstances of an event, motion, occurrence, or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance.

    5. Something that is based on or concerned with the evidence presented in a legal case.

    In our search of the published medical literature, we have not found evidence showing that popular interpretations of the significance or accuracy of HIV tests are scientifically valid or correct. In exchange for this fact, we will award the finder. Hence, the “Fact Finder Award.”

    If a study that validates HIV tests may not exist, what’s the point of offering the award?

    We hope a monetary incentive will motivate someone to find a study we’ve missed or to inspire a group of AIDS researchers to conduct.

    The spirit of the Fact Finder Award is win-win. Whether or not the award is ever claimed, everyone would benefit from a forthright and scientific discussion of HIV tests.

    With this in mind, we invite you to join an effort that’s good for one and all by passing this offer on to AIDS doctors, AIDS scientists, AIDS organizations, AIDS activists and celebrity spokespersons, journalists, teachers, medical students, or anyone who wants to help Heifer International end hunger and poverty in the developing world by building sustainable holistic communities.

  12. Tyson, you don’t really want to know, or believe, do you?

  13. Hi Karri,

    I am watching. I am reading. I am waiting to hear. From what I can see, your experience and others like you points to gaps in our knowledge. I certainly don’t have the expertise to evaluate the claims, but I am listening…

  14. […] was raised on several occasions in last weeks’ HIV/AIDS posts here and here, and this article at Wired (Artist Builds Temple of Science) makes the “science as […]

  15. You truth deniers are all the same, closed minded. You people are so stupid, after all these years you still haven’t figured out that the HIV/AIDS connection is nothing but a big scam. Perhaps a little history about AIDS would help you fools see what I mean. Around 1984 a government scientist by the name of Robert Gallo claimed that the HIV virus caused AIDS. He never did one once of research to support his hypothesis, he just made the claim and everyone said he was a genius. Then in 1987 a retrovirus expert by the name of Dr Peter Duesberg did research on Gallo’s claim and stated it was wrong. He flat out said in 1987 that HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS. So what causes AIDS? Long term drug usage, yes all those drugs that gays took including poppers (amyl nitrate) and all the other garbage (club drugs) that went in their arm and up their nose for all those years is what killed their immune system. To make matters worse the drug AZT that was given to people who had HIV is poison and helped kill even more people. It should come as no surprise that the drug user community also had AIDS. No it wasn’t infected needles that caused AIDS it was the drugs on the inside of the vile that was killing them. So Reagan could have stopped the AIDS problem very early, all he had to do was tell everyone that Robert Gallo was nothing but a big liar and that the problem was long term drug usage in the gay and drug user communities. He was silent on the AIDS issue because he probably knew all a long that it was non-sense and if people were stupid enough to take drugs it was their own problem. If you think this is all kook talk, then you are bigger fools then I thought you were. Kary Mullis is a Nobel Prize winning American biochemist and he fully supports Peter Duesberg’s claim that HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS. Robert Gallo is a proven liar and a scumbag and yet you will take his word over Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis. They had everything to lose and nothing to gain by telling the truth. When the top retrovirus expert and a Nobel Prize winner tell you that HIV does not cause AIDS and you still believe in the scumbag then you’re stupid and there is no cure for that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: