Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy

Seeking Stories of AIDS Denialism

Have you or someone you know been harmed by AIDS Denialism? If you, or someone you care about, have been advised to stop taking HIV meds, ignore HIV test results, purchase a 'natural' cure etc., please email me.

All information will be kept confidential.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

The Christine Maggiore Story: Final Chapter?

Christine Maggiore, the most visible AIDS denialist activist, died last December. As posted here and in many places, her death was no mystery. Having tested HIV positive in 1992 and refusing modern medical care, Christine Maggiore died from complications of AIDS. At the time we knew her death involved her suffering from pneumonia. We now know from her death certificate that the immediate cause of her death was disseminated herpes viral infection. This disease is so specific to CD4 cell loss it almost never occurs outside of HIV infection. Her bilateral bronchial pneumonia was an underlying condition that contributed to her death. Essentially, Christine Maggiore’s immune system collapsed. She was under the care of Ilona Abraham, a provider who had earned their degree from the Semmelweis University, the same Semmelweis that has not so clean hands having recently given Peter Duesberg and Celia Farber awards for their truthiness on AIDS. Christine Maggiore was a denialist to the end, choosing a provider who specializes in the use of chelation, mercury detoxification, homeopathy, and nutritional supplements rather than a modern medical doctor who may have actually been able to help her.

In yet another development in the sad story of Christine Maggiore, her husband Robin Scovill has settled their lawsuit against the Los Angeles Coroner’s office for allegedly erring when it determined their 3-year-old daughter Eliza Jane had died of AIDS-related causes.

According to the LA Times "The lawsuit demanded up to $10,000 for each violation of Eliza Jane's right to privacy, plus unspecified damages". The case was settled for $15,000. This ends another chapter in the saga of Christine Maggiore.

These sad details, as undeniable as they are, will mean nothing to AIDS denialists. The life and death of Christine Maggiore continues to inspire them to turn away from medicine and science. That is why, after all, it is called denialism.
UPDATE: How do AIDS denialists deny the undeniable? Visit AIDS Myth Exposed Forums and find out. Try this one on for size...


  1. Could you please reference your claims? "We now know (...)" is a little bit vague!

  2. Hi Ronald, thanks for asking!
    Like the record of our birth, the record of our death is a matter of public record. Anyone can request a copy of a death certificate, in this case from the State of California.

    Given the endless state of AIDS denialism it is often necessary to rely on such records, even when the truth is readily apparent.

  3. Not So Anonymous, because other mammals may suffer similar diseases means that Christine Maggiore did not die of AIDS?
    Is that what you are trying to say?
    Yet another example of how difficult, if not impossible, it is for someone so deeply in denial to accept irrefutable truth. Why not accept the truth about Christine Maggiore’s death? What makes this so hard for you? Is it too close to home?

  4. Disseminated herpes is a particularly horrible disease. In human adults it is pathognomonic of extremely severe T-cell deficiency, and is virtually never found except as a complication of transplant or cancer chemotherapy, or in advanced AIDS.

  5. Yup, She definitely had complications of aids. Disseminated herpes more than proves it.
    Michael G.

  6. Seth, how did all the people who's records disappeared in Uganda Nevirapine trials die? Do you care? How about all the people who became positive in the vaccine trials? Do you care?

    How about all the people who die on drugs all the time? Do you care? Just wondering, because obviously you don't give a damn about anything except hating a few people who stand up to your line of work. good for you.

  7. Der,
    Wow, that is a lot of denialism for one comment!
    But this post is about Christine Maggiore, and why disrespect her with all of that silliness? Was Christine Maggiore vaccinated? Did she take antiretrovirals? Was she from Uganda? Lets stay focused on Christine and her unnecessarily awful death.
    See, the difference between us is not hate. I do not hate AIDS denialists. The difference is that I do care about AIDS. You seem pretty angry. Denial is a strange response to anger. What is that makes this so difficult for you?

  8. Seth,
    Ilona Abraham, the doctor who failed to properly treat Christine Maggiore's HIV-related opportunistic infections, got her MD at Semmelweis Medical School in Hungary, which is related only by name to the erstwhile Semmelweis Society International, the group that gave Duesberg and Farber the "Clean Hands" award, only by name. (I say erstwhile becuase HIV denialist wackadoodle and right wing private investigator Clark Baker seems to have taken over and destroyed that little organization.) Dr. Abraham, who has quite a history of professional discipline for medical malpractice, calls herself an "anti-aging" specialist--she does seem to have helped stopped Maggiore's aging process.

  9. Thanks for the comment and clarification Jeanne! So noted on the Clean Hands people.
    AIDS Myth Exposed (AME) bloggers are saying it is more likely that Dr. Abraham killed Christine Maggiore than HIV. Seriously! Now that is something. The quote posted at the AME site follows....

    "Well, if they are acknowledging that she was being treated by a "quack," isn't it possible that is what led to her death? Many "alternative" medicine doctors (those who are medical doctors) advise patients to do some potentially very dangerous things (like chelation or fish oil supplementation, which can be highly immunosuppressive). This is why if you are going to make claims about a "virus" killing someone a dozen years later, after several years of good health, you need to take so many potentially causative factors into account (to make a scientific claim) that it may not be possible, unless you can somehow get some volunteers who will live in your "bubble" world (and of course you'd need the money to keep the experiment going for years)."

  10. Thanks for posting this Seth. Seeing the way that the denialists are trying to spin their way out of this one is depressing. So how long do you think it will take them to update the A&W site to even mention that its founder is dead?

  11. No clue about Alive & Well. It has not been touched since she paased away, at least as far as I can tell. No memorial or anything. Surprising. She was so loved. Could mean she did it all on her own? Maybe it is just too painful for anyone else to work on? Or maybe her loved ones don't know the password?

  12. The painful truth is that no one here is in possession of her medical records so y'all are speculating. Sad bunch of people we are, eh?

  13. Thanks Pat!
    We needed an example of moving the goal posts.
    “How can we say what Christine died of without a death certificate?”
    Pat, here is her death certificate.
    “So what, where are her medical records?”
    OK Pat, let's say we see her medical records.
    Then what?
    A molecular analysis of her ashes?

  14. Seth,
    I tried to pull up the death certificate here and at, but I only get a blank screen. Could be my computer.
    Also, the AIDSMythexposed "bunch", and I use that term loosely, are good for a giggle. Also, if you have seen their "new and improved" site, it is fun to see what it is NOT doing now. When it first came up, you could see who was on the site live. When I noticed, there were only three others, beside myself. I cannot seem to locate this feature now. Perhaps they dis-abled it since it showed just how few people actually use that site!

  15. Hi JTD
    Do you know Pat?
    You guys might say Hello.
    JTD, I linked to the Death Certificate above in text. If that does not work for you, I (like anyone) was able to download it and can email it upon request. THANKS

  16. Thanks, Seth, I would love to read the DC.
    Also, for Jeanne Bergman, you might be interested to know that felon, Clark Baker and the rest of the pseudo-board of SSI have been voted out (legitimately) and a real board is back at SSI. Also, if you want to read about all the FELONIOUS acts Baker committed while on SSI, (and as an LAPD officer) see past posts at
    Baker is a real piece of work.

  17. It's interesting to note how you refer to homeopathy as somehow not "modern." Modern doctors kill patients everyday with unnecessary drugs. Take the big cholesterol fraud as a perfect example. The drugs prescribed to lower cholesterol cause heart disease. It's unnecessary, yet thoroughly "modern." You also seem to live in a fantasy world where HIV positives listen to their doctors and live happily ever after...for a couple years (with their Buffalo Humps, diarrhea and vomiting, until their livers and kidneys fail and they get labelled as another AIDS death).

    Christine lived a lot longer than many do after a positive diagnosis, yet you refer to her as refusing "life extending medications." This makes no sense at all.

  18. Onecleverkid

    Please forgive me if I do not discuss Maggiore specifically. I am all Maggiored out. I do believe the Maggiore story has been told.

    I actually am not anti-homeopathy. I have been reading Ben Goldacre’s book Bad Science and he reviews the placebo effect as good as anyone has. Homeopathy has its place.

    The problem for me comes with ignoring science and medicine because of wacky ideas around conspiracies, pseudoscience and denialism. I have no problem with someone making informed decisions about their health care. I know plenty of people who have refused cancer and HIV treatment for personal and rational reasons. Denying AIDS discusses these issues. Some of the people I called while working on Denying AIDS who I found on the Living without HIV Drugs website were being exploited there. One guy decided for good reasons not refuse treatment . He did not want to persuade others to do the same. His health decision was a personal and well informed choice. Who would not respect that? He was not a denialist.

    HIV treatments are of course not a cure. But they are certainly helping people live longer and healthier lives. But are they for everyone? No. Of course not. The goal is for people to make informed rather than misinformed health decisions.

  19. Hello,
    "The goal is for people to make informed rather than misinformed health decisions." I agree completely. Think of how important that sentence is when you turn it around and look at it from either point of view. The misinformation comes from both sides. Here's an example:

    You stated, "HIV treatments are of course not a cure. But they are certainly helping people live longer and healthier lives." That statement is completely misleading, because someone reading that statement might assume you are basing it on a valid scientific study that came to that conclusion.

    Well, the only way to study whether the drugs are causing people to live longer is to do a side by side study of similar groups where one is taking the drugs and the other is not. This is not done because of the claim that to leave people untreated is unethical. In fact, the claim that the drugs are "life-extending" comes from the fact that the current "cocktails" are noticeably LESS TOXIC than the original AZT monotherapy. So, here you have people living longer on less toxic drugs and you are claiming that as proof that the new drugs extend lives. That is illogical. There is no study proving your statement to be true, yet you continue to state it.

    Also, the statistics of people "living longer" are completely useless when you look at the change in medical treatment to a numbers game. Now doctors monitor T cell counts and "viral loads" and then administer drugs to healthy people who just happen to have what you consider unfavorable numbers. Well, logic would dictate, that these healthy people would live longer on these toxic drugs than clinically sick people used to in the past.

    if you want people to make informed decisions about their health treatment options, stop lying about these important facts and allow them to view the whole picture through a clear lens.

  20. Ah, onecleverkid

    You are looking for debate about HIV causing AIDS.

    I am afraid you have come to the wrong place.

    I do not debate the facts of AIDS with denialists on my blog. That would be a huge waste of time. Sorry.

    Now I know you will say that I am just afraid and do not have answers. I know, I know. More of the same.

    This blog is about AIDS denial, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories. If you want to debate the virtues of Henry Bauer go to Reckless Endangerment.

    Of course, if some other reader wants to go at with you, I will post comments. Just keep them a reasonable length.

  21. Reflectiing on the same old claims of AIDS denialism that are the subjects of favorite 'debate', I thought it may be useful to rerun a comment posted by 'snout' in an earlier post (see 'What is HIV/AIDS Denialism). Snout said it as well as anyone.

    From snout:
    Here are 36 of my all-time favorites, but I’m sure your readers can think of more.

    1. Non specific HIV tests
    2. Show me the one paper
    3. The petition(s)
    4. Gallo was a fraud
    5. Epidemiology proves it can’t be an infection
    6. Never been isolated
    7. Poppers cause KS
    8. Anything quote mined from a test kit insert
    9. No EMs of HIV
    10. Magic Johnson is really HIV neg
    11. “Everyone tests positive”
    12. Hardly any deaths in South Africa
    13. Dissidents have been persecuted/silenced
    14. AIDS Inc / AIDS Mafia
    15. AZT too toxic for cancer chemotherapy
    16. Lab AZT has a skull and crossbones on the label
    17. Pharma Shill
    18. HIV is really (endogenous) HERV
    19. AIDS Truthers won’t debate with us
    20. Padian
    21. Rodreguez
    22. The Bangui definition
    23. Intestinal dysbiosis/Gay bowel Syndrome
    24. No gold standard
    25. 1 million flat graph US prevalence since 1985
    26. AIDS is really untreated syphilis / mycoplasma
    27. The Continuum award
    28. Galileo was right!
    29. Just a new name for old diseases
    30. AIDS is a category not an illness
    31. Kuhn or any use of the word “paradigm”
    32. Antibodies mean immunity
    33. No vaccine proves there’s no virus
    34. There are no FDA approved HIV tests
    35. HIV only rarely detected in people with AIDS
    36. HIV rarely progresses to AIDS

  22. I guess I really don't see the point of this blog then. If someone makes an actual point, you go and make an unrelated point, which is actually not a point at all. In other words, it's pointless.

    I was looking to call you on the fact that you spread misinformation (like the drugs being "life extending," which is an unsubstantiated claim when viewed logically) and your response was that I was "looking for debate about HIV causing AIDS." That's not what I was saying at all. If you presented arguments like this in any of my classes in college, you would have flunked out of school.

  23. Oooh ooh ooh! I want to add one here)

    37. Magic Johnson is really John Moore masquerading as a basketball player to line his own pockets...just follow the money trail people...follow the money trail!

    -Poodle Stomper

  24. Poodlestomper, 37 is good. Do I hear 38?

    Ok, so you want to debate whether HIV treatments suppress the virus, improve health, extend lives. It is the same difference as arguing that HIV does not cause AIDS.

    The point of my blog is to correspond with people who have read denying AIDS, update them on AIDS denialism, and expose AIDS denialism for what it is. So if you want to debate the psychopathology of AIDS denialists I am up for that.

    Go ahead and pick one. Anyone but David Crowe unless you can provide evidence that he even exists. Have you met him? Does he have an employer that can verify his existence? Has he ever been isolated and photographed? You think I am kidding Kid, but there is no evidence he exists. None at all. See the post below. People said they would send evidence and no one ever has. Why not? There is a theory that Gary Null is posing as David Crowe. That is the best we have.

    So how about Henry Bauer? You seem think he is credible because he has lots of tables and charts. So let’s say you tell me one good reason to give Henry Bauer credibility? Why should anyone believe anything he has to say about AIDS? Any reason to believe he is just not pulling rabbit poop out of a hat with those charts and tables?

    Go ahead. If you tell me why anyone should believe Henry Bauer I will give you reason to know that HIV treatments improve health and survival. I must like you kid, I would not make this offer to just anyone.

  25. Hot diggity, PoodleStomper. I had 36 canards on my Aids Denialist Bingo™ Card, making a nice neat six by six array. Then you come up with a 37th. Now I have to come up with another twelve to make a tidy seven by seven array (I’m a bit anal about keeping my bingo cards square). Oh well.

    38. AIDS theory is racist
    39. Age distribution of HIV means it can’t be an STI
    40. Haemophiliacs never got AIDS – they were going to die anyway
    41. Anal douching causes AIDS
    42. Henry Bauer gets candidal balanitis from Bactrim*
    43. Anything can cause immune deficiency
    44. Just about any disease is an aids-defining illness
    45. Audrey Serrano
    46. AIDS is just a nocebo effect from the Voodoo Curse
    47. Harsh overly-deterministic diagnosis
    48. Ad Hominem!
    49. What about long term non-progressors?

    *Don't think too long about this one - just mark it off whenever he mentions it

  26. Ok, now I realize that the wrong guy wrote the book! You have them down! Poodlestomper, if you go for 50, Snout could explode.

  27. You and David Crowe actually look a lot alike. And I've never seen you in the same place at the same time. Hmmm.

  28. See now you get it. I could be posing as David Crowe. It is true. It could be anyone.
    No evidence that David Crowe exists. So how can you believe anything at Rethinking AIDS?

    And could you dig up any reason to trust Henry Bauer?

    A former student he ushered into a career in science?
    A paper published in a legitimate journal?
    Any real scientific achievement?
    A research grant?

    And you buy into AIDS denialism because….?

  29. I have met David Crowe many times. I have fished the LA River with Christine Maggiore. But, I have never met you, so as far as I know, you are not real and therefore should not be trusted.

    And I don't "buy into AIDS denialism" at all. I have my own questions which have never satisfactorily been answered. I don't care which camp you try to throw me into. I have questions for Democrats and Republicans alike. Throwing people into a category just so you can argue with them as if they have said the same things as other people in that category, is a short cut only for you. It's a short cut to the end of an argument you think you have already won and therefore have no need to continue. I'd advise you to stick the the words being written be each person. Treat every issue and every person with respect, on a case-by-case basis, and maybe someday we will all arrive at the truth.

    1. That's reason enough alone for not reading your posts anymore, You hang out with Denialists and admit it here, Case closed you are a denialist here to raise certain concerns that we have all heard before, You want proof that HAART works? look at the numbers, AIDS deaths dropped hugely when HAART came out

  30. Kid, sorry. Saying you have met David Crowe is not proof that he exists. I mean, how do you know that he really was David Crowe? I bet you never even questioned it did you? Just trusted he was who he said. But you know what, if you met the man in those pictures, I would concede that he exists.

    Do you have a picture of you with him? Can you document that it is you in the picture? This could be settled once and for all if you do. If you wish to discuss the existence of Crowe further please post in the last post on this blog “Missing Denialist”. It would be nice to keep a running record.

    And here is the thing. I do “stick to the words being written be each person”. But I heavily weigh the credibility (not credentials) of the person.

    Now we are back to guys with BA’s in Math and science who are wannabe Doctors, pseudoscientists who claim that everyone tests HIV+, narcissists who claim that HIV is harmless and there is no genetic basis for ANY cancer, paranoid personalities who say they are professors but never even held an academic position, snake oil salesmen, conspiracy theories, alien abducted Nobel Prize winners, and Loch Ness Monster hunters. For me it is all about credibility. The AIDS denialists and pseudoscientists just do not have any.

    Kid, I have questions about AIDS too. In writing Denying AIDS I had several. The difference between us is where we seek our answers and who we trust to arrive at bits of the truth.

  31. Whoa whoa! I am so confused now. I just read your "missing denialist" blog and it sounds like you have conjured up a crazy conspiracy of your own, that an actor plays David Crowe and that he does not even exist. Do you have a theory as to why someone would bother and which side of the argument they really exist on? Is this a case of triple-cross in the AIDS world? Cointelpro gone awry? Please offer me some guidance.

  32. Please see Missing Denialist Post below for response.

  33. SNout,
    Sorry...I had to:
    50. The AIDS establishmet destroyed Duesberg's career (even though he had already tossed it in the crapper himself with his blind adherence to his aneuploidy "theory")!

    -Poodle Stomper

  34. Did you see that Gordon Stewart has missed the boat again? RA are claiming that he has submitted "evidence" to the Contaminated Blood Inquiry. He wrote a letter dated 10th March 2009. The last public hearing in that inquiry was in June 2008 and the final report was published on the 23rd February 2009... so he really has done no such thing as submitting evidence to the inquiry at all. Yet more lies from the RA idiots trying to look respectable but looking spectacularly slow, as always. Maybe the dog ate his homework...

  35. 51. Where’s the study of HAART vs placebo?
    52. AZT monotherapy killed everyone who died of AIDS before 1996
    53. HAART (including AZT) is less toxic than AZT alone
    54. High dose AZT monotherapy was used until HAART came in
    55. What’s wrong with asking questions? I'm just looking for guidance
    56. No, of course I’m not really Michael Geiger.

    *Thanks to “onecleverkid” for canards 51 to 56.

    57. Gallo dishonestly published EMs of debris in Science – and none of its readers noticed for 24 years until Janine Roberts came along.
    58. The 1984 Science papers weren’t peer reviewed
    59. Why won’t you reveal your real identity?
    60. Buy my book! I answer everything there, with lots of tables.
    61. Steroids are prescribed for STDs
    62. The CDC kept rewriting AIDS definitions to keep the money flowing in.
    63. Viruses always infect both genders equally
    64. TB bacteria make you test HIV positive

  36. 65. HIV is endogenous...errr exogenous...wait whats the difference again...?

    -Poodle Stomper

  37. also...
    66. Bone pointing causes AIDS, except for those who find out they are HIV+ only after the symptoms have shown, they must be druggies!

    -Poodle Stomper

  38. Who's Michael Geiger?
    And what is the point of this list?

  39. Awesome!
    This thread will be home to the first comprehensive catalogue of cards that build the house of AIDS denialism. I just have to contribute...

    67. We are not published because we are censored.
    68. It is a mistake to confuse science with medicine.
    69. EM’s of HIV are contaminated by cellular proteins.
    70. The virus has not been purified

    What an endless sea of crap!

    And who is onecleverkid?
    I am not so sure it is Michael. Most of these comments have been succinct and coherent.

  40. Kid, the point of this list of denialist canards is that they have been answered again and again, and even a few moments’ reading away from the denialist websites will show you why they are nonsense.

    This doesn’t stop denialists continually posting them. As soon as they get refuted on one website or blog thread they simply go and spam the exact same nonsense on another. Those of us who occasionally try to counter the bullshit eventually realise that reason and evidence, actual science and logic are no match for the power of the copy-paste keys in the hands of determined denialists. So really, the best thing to do is make a game of it. All the canards on Aids Denialist Bingo™ are familiar to anyone who has tried to reason with denialists in the past, and we all know why they are rubbish.

    Despite your claim to be just seeking information, you have not asked any actual questions about HIV and AIDS. You have simply repeated assertions which I presume you got from denialist websites.

    Case in point: the early HAART treatments circa 1996-8 were not less toxic than AZT monotherapy circa 1992-5. The exact same dose of AZT (500-600 mg daily) was used for monotherapy (and dual therapies) during 1992-5 as was used in the subsequent HAART regimens in 1996-8. The decrease in mortality from 1996 was due to increasingly effective treatments, not a decrease in toxicity. AIDS denialists lie about this history to make it fit their baseless assertion that AZT toxicity caused most AIDS deaths. And you just repeated this crap without bothering to check whether it was true.

    Uncritically regurgitating nonsense is not clever, even for a kid. And if the nonsense is the same old set of canards that have been repeatedly debunked, you're going to have trouble getting anyone to take you seriously enough to explain where you have been misinformed. Sorry.

  41. This Discussion reminds me of the following example:
    "..., consider the once popular notion that Paul McCartney died some years ago (I don't know whether there is still a group who believes this).
    Suppose we produce Paul in the flesh. This won't do - he is, of course, a cunning replacement. Suppose we show that no death certificate was issued anywhere around the time of his purported demise. Well, of course, there was a cover up; it was made
    out in a different name. Suppose we supply DNA evidence from the current Paul and it exactly matches the original Paul's DNA. Another plot; the current sample was switched behind the scenes... and so on.
    This theory is useless because there is only
    (rather stretched) supporting evidence and no accepted means of falsification. (...)"(Coolican,2004)

    I ve seen this pattern over and over again in various dissident forums around the Internet. It always ends up like this, no matter how strong the evidence (see: gos2u vs. biolad on Jackson et al.) - and of course, if you look long enough, especially in life sciences, you will always find certain anomalies to support any notion, and if there are none, well then it's fraudulent ....and so on.

    The early (and probably preventable) demise of yet another dissident in a predictable manner underlines the validity of current mainstream aids research in my mind.

    This is why i quit denialism - this does not mean that i'm not skeptical anymore, science is, was and will be wrong about things, but as it stands, they are better at explaining hiv/aids than dissidents claim to be.

  42. Roland,
    How long ago did you quit denialism? I'm wondering if you would share your story or what the defining moment was.

    -Poodle Stomper

  43. Roland,
    I'm glad to hear you've moved on. I ended up stopping the debate with Gos due to a combination of 1) his asking to prove HIV wasn't endogenous and then demonstrating he didn't know what that meant and 2) his statement that he was "only delaying his inevitable victory". That combination made it clear that he had no interest in learning anything and would prefer to simply repeat quotes from Farber and the likes without bothering to understand them. I have no problems with people who are open to learning but when the mind is closed the debate is over. I had actually written a response to his closing comments but decided it wasn't even worth posting at that point. Glad to hear you are still looking at life from a skeptical (but open minded) point of view. That is, after all, what science is built on.


  44. This discussion reminds me of the Terri Schiavo fiasco, during which ideologues with an agenda to push, even a US Senator with a medical degree and a carreer as an emminent surgeon, engaged in the practice of diagnosing a person from thousand of miles away, disregarding the judgment of the actual physicians attending to this patient, all in the name of the agenda they would shamelessly push at whatsoever cost.

    So much for the ilk of Bill Frist who call themselves scientists but who engage in behavior most unscientific. You keep ridiculous and hurtful company and will end up over time with the same disrepute and irrelevance.

  45. Wow, you guys are right. It IS frustrating to argue with people who just seem to be reading off flash cards and not listening to the words being said by an actual human being right here and now.

    Number 51 on your list ("Where’s the study of HAART vs placebo?") is not what I said. I am more concerned with comparing people on HAART with people not on any meds at all. In my mind, taking a placebo is still an attempt at being "saved" by the almighty pharmaceutical industry.

    And ingesting things in combination IS different than ingesting them separately (even if you ingest the exact same amounts). If you studied nutrition, this would make perfect sense. Try taking all your multi-vitamins on an empty stomach and you'll be wishing you took the same pills IN COMBINATION with food. Take carrot juice alone and it's very sugary. Take carrot juice with some protein and it's a healthy snack (and anti-fungal as well, but I guess the AIDS establishment doesn't care or believe in fungal infections, because only HIV matters).
    Eat a baked potato alone and it has one of the highest glycemic indexes of any food (and is therefore frowned upon by dieters) but smear some (supposedly fattening) butter on that potato and it slows down its digestion and therefore doesn't trigger so much insulin to be released and is actually LESS fattening.

    Am I a denialist because I ignore all those thousands of "scientific" studies that "proved" that butter was bad for me? Does it matter that those studies were conducted by the people who manufacture fake butter (which is in fact a toxic poison, but you guys don't believe in anything being a toxic poison)?

  46. Seth, did you say "succinct and coherent" just before?

  47. Spoke too soon. That is his last comment unless he gets back to 400 words. Michael, can you manage that? Drink some green tea and chill.

  48. "I am more concerned with comparing people on HAART with people not on any meds at all. In my mind, taking a placebo is still an attempt at being "saved" by the almighty pharmaceutical industry."

    I don't think that the Heimlich Maneuver works to be honest. I would like to see a controlled "no-placebo/no-HM vs. HM treated patient" study done to be certain. Onecleverkid, would you like to volunteer for the no-intervention group? Would such an experiment be ethical?
    Hope this answers your question.

    -Poodle Stomper.

  49. Dr. Kalichman,
    I just discovered the "Casey Cohen" conversations with Dr. Bennett and ORAC from a few years ago. I have a new "psychological" take on this and would like your professional opinion.
    Please see the following link
    Thank you,

  50. JTD
    I read your post. Let me share this with you.
    When I was writing Denying AIDS I had a science writer working with me. When he read the Maggiore story he said the woman had obviously been through the mill. What a devastating horrific thing for her to have lost her child. Who could even imagine the pain she experienced?
    I believe that the desperation you discuss is perfectly consistent with what a parent would do when their child is facing a deadly illness, jumping from one expert to another looking for answers.

    What is distinct here is that Maggiore was searching for desperately search for answers AFTER he baby died. She could not accept the cause of her baby’s death like a parent who cannot accept their child’s diagnosis. This is malignant denial (a psychiatric term I discuss in Denying AIDS). She searched for the answer she was looking for until she found it.

    That is what all denialists do. Right? We call it cherry picking and moving goalposts, but it is all the same behavior.

    She also built a safe place for herself. There was no one to blame for her turmoil except Big Pharma and the medical establishment.

    What is cool, JTD, is that you and others have started blogs to expose denialism for what it is. That was my goal in writing Denying AIDS and that is why I started this blog.

    And it is paying off.

    When people search for AIDS information they no longer just hit the Rethinking AIDS Myths Origins Crazy sites. Here are some recent google searches that landed people here…

    ‘true cause of Christine Maggiore's death’
    ‘David Gisselquist’
    law & order episode aids denial
    maggiore "death certificate"
    david crowe is he credible aids
    what is been said about hiv and aids
    christine maggiore lawsuit
    Brink, AIDS denialist

    So JTD, keep up the good work. Let people find you instead of Rethinking AIDS!

  51. Poodle Stomper, your Heimlich Maneuver "analogy" is as idiotic as any post on this thread. In the case of a choking victim, you can actually see for yourself, and therefore prove, that they are choking on something and offer a proven and effective way to help them out. Such is not at all the case with people who are unlucky enough to come up positive on a non-specific anti-body test. Give me a break.

  52. Never actually seen AIDS, have you, Kid? In fact you have absolutely no idea what it is, do you?

    Would you like another baked potato? I'll put extra butter on it for you if you like. Save us having to try out the Heimlich manoeuvre later.

  53. Snout, Poodle Stomper, and everyone else on this thread, there is a great new film premiering next month that I can't wait for you all to watch. See you at the movies!

  54. Also, Snout, in your infinite wisdom, you confused HIV for AIDS once again. Instead of asking someone if they have seen AIDS, you should ask if they've seen HIV.

    Since AIDS is a category and not a single disease, I don't know what you actually mean by "seeing" it.

  55. Kid, re "AIDS is a category and not a single disease" (Canard #30), are you doing this deliberately?

    AIDS is a single disease of the immune system, in the same way that pneumonia is a disease of the respiratory system and Parkinson's disease is a disease of the nervous sytem. You are confusing signifiers (symptoms, AIDS-defining conditions, signs) with the signified (the immune system disease itself).

  56. OneCleverKid (?)
    Other than a new AIDS Denialist book, nothing I love more than an AIDS Denialist Movie. There are other trailers that are definitely hoaxes, but this one seems for sure. Great!
    Please tell me Bauer is in it? That would be too good to be true.

    Tell me, why is it that all of the AIDS Denialists have severely insane eyes? Guess?
    Yep, I share your excitement. Can’t wait to see it!

  57. onecleverkid,

    "your Heimlich Maneuver "analogy" is as idiotic as any post on this thread. In the case of a choking victim, you can actually see for yourself, and therefore prove, that they are choking on something and offer a proven and effective way to help them out."

    And in the case of HIV you can likewise see what is happening if you can UNDERSTAND it. Unfortunately so many denialists, like yourself, don't understand squat about biology and from there stems your problems. Virology is not a simple subject and definitely not one where one can claim they are right by "logic" but have no underlying knowledge of the basics.

    "Such is not at all the case with people who are unlucky enough to come up positive on a non-specific anti-body test. Give me a break."

    You are a fantastic example of my above statement. Let me ask you this and please answer it honestly (at least to yourself). What gave you the idea that these are non-specific? Did you read it in a denialist pseudoscience site/blog/book and decide "Hey that seems to make sense to me. I'll incorporate that into my beliefs" or did you actively research said claims and examine BOTH sides of the argument? Did you ask honestly whether those claims were true from someone who, unlike denialists, actually have experience in the field? I say be honest with yourself because I think the answer is evident to everyone else on this site.

    -Poodle Stomper

  58. Great! I realy like it. thanks guys for shariing such a valuable info.