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, October 1, 2009

Moron AIDS Denialist Film House of Numbers: Notes from the show

Having seen the AIDS Denialist film House of Numbers, I must say that it is worse than anyone could imagine. The film misuses the words of leading AIDS scientists to raise doubts about whether HIV causes AIDS, the validity of HIV testing, and the benefits of HIV treatments. Context is everything, and House of Numbers creates an illusion of debate among scientists by placing scientists along side of pseudoscientists. All Doctors and Professors are equal in the eyes of Director Brent Leung.

Contorting words to misrepresent reality is what AIDS Deniers do. Some AIDS Deniers must distort reality to protect their bubble of denial. HIV infected persons who are living in an AIDS denial delusion appear in the film, such as the late Christine Maggiore. Also not surprising are the words of the professional AIDS Deniers, who simply repeat the denialist mantra heard so many times before. The mosaic is fascinating to those of us who study AIDS Denialism, reaffirming to those living in denial, and boring to tears for everyone else.

In case you are smart enough to have not seen the film, I offer you some of my favorite AIDS Denialist quotes. I wrote down much of what was said in the film because, well, I am a really good note taker. Here you have it… AIDS Denialism’s greatest hits delivered in House of Numbers.
UPDATE: UK Raindance Film Festival shows House of Numbers. UK Skeptics respond. Ben Goldacre's Bad Science Gimpy's Blog
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos: We do not say that HIV doesn’t exist. What we say is that the presently available data does not prove the existence of HIV.
It’s one thing to look like and another thing to be a virus.

Peter Duesberg: For them to justify their expenses and their existence, and make their careers they have to find infectious diseases. The more diseases they can lump into this AIDs syndrome the better the chances they get patients under the umbrella.

If Fauci would say that here’s a billion dollars for alternate theories of AIDS, you wouldn’t believe what is going to happen. A lot of HIV researchers overnight would find would start [studying] co-factors. The first year they would call it co-factors of HIV.

They are all prostitutes, most of them, my collogues, to some degree, including myself. You have to be prostitutes to get money for your research. You are trained a little bit to be a prostitute. But some go all the way.

Nineteen million Americans now, 19 million, are taking illicit toxic medications. But we do not talk about this, this is politically incorrect.

That is AIDS by prescription. You get an immune deficiency and you die from the toxins.

Celia Farber: The changes and the definition have been political. Every time they change the definition, the numbers go up. This word AIDS, I don’t know what it is anymore. I don’t know what we talk about anymore when we talk about AIDS. AIDS is one thing in Greenwich village and very different thing in Kampala, Uganda.

Kary B. Mullis: The CDC was looking for something like that, when it came along. They were looking for it already; they were hoping that there was going to be a new plague, because polio was over, the CDC’s budget was getting decreases back in the early 80s…There were memos around the CDC saying “we need to find a new plague”. We need to find something that will scare the American people so that they will give us more money! Suddenly there was a lot of money available for anybody who wanted to study HIV. And nobody ever looked back and said, “Why do we want to study HIV…Bob Gallo said on TV causes AIDS?” We don’t know what AIDS is; AIDS is so hard to define, we could change the definition of it every year.

It was like a mad wonderful kind of dance that was being done, but if you think that can happen forever, you are wrong. What exactly caused Kaposi Sarcoma, we know that now. It was amyl nitrite.

Neville Hodgkinson: Whole nations have been lead to believe that in some instances that they’ve got large percentages of their population infected and doomed because of this supposed sexually transmitted virus. It’s such a tragedy. Because of the different criteria that apply in different countries you can test HIV positive in one country and be given an AIDs diagnosis as a result of that where as in another country you won’t test HIV positive and you won’t be given an AIDs diagnosis. It does not allow you to tell a single person on this planet that they are HIV positive. And it’s a scandal that this test continues to be used.

Christian Fiala: In the era before AIDS we had to admit we don’t know the diagnose and we could hypothesis, but nowadays what doctors do is well, if we don’t know what it is then it must be AIDS. : I think it is important to keep in mind, especially for us in the west, that poverty is not a romantic issue. It is a deadly issue. Poverty leads to disease and premature death, period! I think HIV totally has turned out not to be the cause of AIDS. HIV has turned out not to be.

Claus Koehnlein: The treatment causes a very similar condition we would expect from an AIDS patient. That’s why nobody noticed there was something wrong with the patient. That is the very reason why everybody believes that HIV is a deadly virus because the HIV positive patients at the time got a deadly treatment.

Nobody wants to realize what was the real effect of this over treatment. That means we killed a whole generation of AIDS patients. The AIDS medication today is not that toxic then it was in the early days. It’s a potent drug regimen which means it kills everything.

So patients really do better for the short term, but for the long term they die also.

I have patients tested in 1985. They were all advised to take treatment but they declined treatment for different reasons because they didn’t want to take toxic drugs, because they were feeling well at that time. They are still living healthy.


  1. "They are all prostitutes, most of them, my collogues, to some degree, including myself. You have to be prostitutes to get money for your research. You are trained a little bit to be a prostitute. But some go all the way." Peter Duesberg

    Great quote Peter. I even hear that some scientists prostituted themselves by accepting grants from Big Tobacco.

    Hang on! Council for Tobacco Research Grants No. 3057 and No. 1547 were awarded to ....... Peter Duesberg!

  2. Chris you are truly amazing! My question is: when Pete wrote his papers funded by this grant (3057) was he already off the deep end in the Aneuploidy pool? When did he completely lose it?

  3. Hi Seth. Wow! That was a quick pick-up on my message re; Brent Leung and HOUSE OF NUMBERS... and you're the first person to ever make a comment on my blog - it's not been going very long. It's quite a statement that with all the activity I'm involved career wise (the reason I started my blog), I didn't anticipate it being a platform for what is obviously a 'hot potato'.
    In the spirit of democracy and free speech I've posted your comment. I'm not equipped to debate with you about the science - and I hope that doesn't imply I'm not interested in science, quite the contrary. I have a very healthy interest and truly dislike 'bad science'. You are clearly an expert in your field and 'have dedicated your life to helping people with HIV-AIDS' - and I sincerely believe that's a valuable and important calling! The only thing I would like to say about the film (and the major impression it left me with) is nothing to do with denying HIV-AIDS, it's about the other issues to do with health and the immune system which it brought into the discussion - in particular poverty, diet and life style. These are things we all take for granted or have learned to ignore and live with - better left to struggling NGOs. Many more people die of these causes then of AIDS. There are problems and problems...
    Some problems have immediate solutions (that money could change, with some political will and public support) and other that are indefinitely challenging. The HIV-AIDS problem comes under the second heading. How many peolple die of starvation in a (Western) world that disposes of so much food.
    In regards to the reality of changing understandings and attitudes to drug treatments in any area of illness: 20 years ago people happily took antibiotics whenever a doctor prescribed them. But most informed people are quite a bit more cautious about them these days...
    All the negative press I've seen about the film focuses on one issue brought up in the film and ignores the many others. Like any expression of opinion and perspective, people read into it that which mirrors their own life and beliefs. I would love to read a balanced, well structure and analytical (scientific?) critique of the film that properly and thoroughly looked at all the points identified in the film, rather than only a few. Maybe you could be that person...

  4. Thank you Michael, for coming here to post.
    My readers may be interested in your personal encounter with Brent Leung. So they should visit your blog as well. If you do not like ‘Bad Science’ you have certainly landed in the middle of some very bad science with this stuff.

    It is not that House of Numbers is controversial. House of Numbers is potentially harmful to people who are confused about AIDS.

    Not sure if you saw Ben Goldacre’s Guardian column last week (posted below), it concerned House of Numbers.

    I have never met Brent Leung. I would not be surprised if he was a nice guy and was duped by some of the world class con artists involved in AIDS Denial. He sure spent time with interesting people. Peter Duesberg is one of the most interesting people I have ever met. Duesberg certainly associates with some evil characters- including people who had a DIRECT hand in the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of South Africans.

    I am not sure if you have ever seen a film on the Holocaust by a man named David Cole? People could walk away from that film questioning whether there were ever any gas chambers under Nazi control. He uses similar tactics. Denialists can be quite crafty and very persuasive. I can only hope that your friend Brent was deceived by the Denialists. That would mean there is hope for him.

    I should also say there is no debate about what causes AIDS. HIV causes AIDS. There are lots of debates about how HIV destroys the immune system; not all of the mechanisms are known. Brent Leung used words just like those 'not all mechanisms are known' - to suggest that there is a debate about whether HIV causes AIDS. I hope he did not know what he was doing when David Crowe and the other Denialists said cut here and splice there.

    Anyway, thanks again for coming and commenting here.

  5. If you can think of any justification for a film giving a platform to someone like Mark Gabrish Conlan to pontificate about how to look at AIDS logically, Michael, I'd be interested to hear it.

  6. Thanks, Seth, for taking the time to watch and take notes. I didn't expect any revelations here, pretty much "business as usual"(and denialism *is* a business).We readers can save our $10 or see a *real* movie like "The Informant!" as I did(come to think of it,"The Informant!" is probably more reality-based than is Leung's film).Denice Walter.

  7. Right on target Denice!

    Want to see House of Numbers? 10 better things to do with $10

    1.Go see the movie The Informant (Thanks Denice!)

    2.Download U2 No Line on the Horizon

    3.Buy AIDS Denialist Clark Baker a new short (please)

    4.Donate to the Family Treatment Fund to buy AIDS meds in Africa

    5.Place a bet on Snout’s Dumb Pool – betting on the next stupid thing AIDS Deniers come up with

    6.Down load Law & Order SVU ‘Retro’ episode aka ‘The Christine Maggiore Story’

    7.Open a Product (RED) music download account

    8.Buy a soft fuzzy Loch Ness Monster toy signed by Henry Bauer

    9.Purchase a week supply of anti-delusion medications for your favorite AIDS Denialist

    10.Contribute to the legal aide fund for filing counter suits against AIDS Deniers

  8. Seth said:

    "It is not that House of Numbers is controversial. House of Numbers is potentially harmful to people who are confused about AIDS".

    You crack me up, Seth. The only thing it is harmful to is your ego, and your wallet, should you keep eating at the public hiv funding trough.

    But, thanks anyway for the good laugh.

    PS: The offer still stands for you to share my hotel in San Fran. Maybe you could yet save me from my "denialist tendencies"!

    Love and kisses,

  9. Hey TD,

    If you could only come up with some justifications for your own pontifications, we would all be interested in hearing them. Just what makes you so smart and such an expert on the subject of hiv or aids?

  10. Myself, I really enjoyed House of Numbers.

    The best thing is the focus on the AIDS scientists, like Gallo, Levy, Fauci, Baltimore, spouting all this self-contradictory nonsense.

    Don Francis from the CDC called Gallo out as a liar.

    And the HIV "test" footage is wonderful. How on earth a "screening" test to save the blood supply from retroviruses, somehow morphed into a medical diagnosis test is remarkable.

    How come AIDS doctors don't detect actual infectious HIV in their patients?

  11. "They are all prostitutes, most of them"

    Not sure, but I think Seth Kalichman, who has made a bundle of his own hiv/aids psyche works was one of the guys that Duesberg was warning us about

  12. Free Willy

    I would be interested in knowing what makes me a prostitute?

    Unlike Peter Duesberg, I have never taken money from any industry, including the Tobacco Council, to do my research.

    Unlike David Rasnick, I have never charged anyone a fee for ‘professional’ services.

    Unlike Peter Duesberg and David Rasnick, I have never taken money from venture capitalists.

    Unlike Henry Bauer, I donate the royalties from my book Denying AIDS to charity.

    Unlike David Crowe and Peter Duesberg, I do not ask for private donations at my website.

    Unlike Gary Null and Matthias Rath, I am not selling vitamins, coffee enemas, or other snake oil.

    So help me out here. What makes me the Prostitute you and Peter say I am?

  13. What was the sound quality like, Seth?

    You see, I'm thinking of making a film, but I need someone to hold the boom mike.

    Do you think David Rasnick might be available?

  14. Gosh, Seth. Michael J McEvoy has now deleted your comment, the only comment he has ever had on his blog.

    Do you reckon the boom operator for House of Numbers (who strangely does not appear in the credits) might have had a word in his ear?

    Just in case anyone is in any doubt, there's another photo of David Rasnick on the set of HON here.

    Brent Leung was asked whether the backers of his film were AIDS denialists. He flat out denied this, and continued the pretense that he was an independent investigator "just asking questions". (What? an AIDS denialist denies something?)

    Brent Leung lied.

    Flat out, pants-on-fire, lied.

    He is so fucking stupid he posted photos on the net of board member of Rethinking AIDS David Rasnick participating in HON not as an "interviewee", but on the production team.

    Then he lied about it.

    Everybody knows by now that HON was a propaganda effort from the septuagenarian sociopaths of RA (Duesberg, Rasnick, Bauer, etc) trying to divert attention away from their responsibility for the catastrophic loss of life caused by AIDS denialism in South Africa and elsewhere, using the exact same disinformation techniques pioneered by the tobacco industry during the 1960s.

    As Chris Noble points out above, Peter Duesberg knows all about these.

  15. Mikey,
    Come back to do another hit and run? You've yet to respond to your previous postings. You know, the one where you claimed others evaded questions? Don't forget to write back. I wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite.

    "How come AIDS doctors don't detect actual infectious HIV in their patients?"

    They can. Coculturing and other methods certainly can do this but the problem is that it is more expensive and very time consuming to do so. It also requires more reagents, more standardized conditions to be monitored, as well as equipment that the average lab may not have. I'm not surprised that you wouldn't find this on denialist sites or in your little movie. You see, you actually need to know and understand science instead of limiting yourself to denialist BS if you want to learn the truth. Sadly the truth is more complicated and less interesting to most than a neat conspiracy theory.

  16. There's a clearer shot of Rasnick in the photo stills press pack on the film's website, and although denialists have a long track record of stupidity it seems unlikely to be accidental. More like a way of giving the middle finger to the people they conned into participating.

    Michael, I can see what you're trying to do there, but Gabrish Conlan is given a platform in a film that is billing itself as unbiased. He takes up the first ten seconds of the trailer, saying "Because it's been surrounded, from day one, with so much emotion, very few people are capable of looking at AIDS logically." Most viewers won't recognize him, or know he's a longtime AIDS denialist whose first article on the "virusmyth" website is from 1996 and entitled "AMA Endorses Genocide" (a triumph of logic, no doubt).

    The placement of this quote upfront is also disgustingly cynical, because it's intended to deflect angry criticism of the film. It's a way of using the pain and suffering of those that have been directly affected by the disease against them, because if they get angry in response to people telling lies about it, it can be dismissed as emotional.

  17. On reflection, maybe I shouldn't so readily dismiss stupidity. The MySpace page does say: "Join our Facebook page for Great Dissucion." I just figured since they' picked only a handful of shots for the press kit, finding one without David Rasnick in it shouldn't have been that hard.

  18. Snout...
    What is it about Rasnick and microphones?

    I think Rasnick has found his calling.

    Leung obviously did not want him interviewed on camera. Rasnick invariably talks about the CIA and government conspiracies. House of Numbers controls the crazy volume. Is it just me, or does Rasnick remind you of Disney’s Country Bear Jamboree when he talks? He just sounds goofy.

    Rasnick’s new role in denialism is behind the scenes. That is what he told me at Duesberg’s Aneuploidy Conference. He did not mention being the boomboy on movie sets, but that now makes sense.

    He controlled access to the microphone at the Aneuploidy conference.

    Sometimes literally ripping the microphone from Duesberg’s hands to give others a chance to talk.

  19. It's funny.

    When I do a literature search for Dr.Peter Duesberg, I get over 200 publications in major scientific journals, such as Science, Nature, PNAS.

    When I do a literature search for "Snout," I get zero.

    When I do a literature search for "Poodle Stomper" I get zero.

    When I do a literature search for Seth Kalichman, I get -- to his credit -- at least some papers. But these are all in psychology journals, involving questionnaires on how patients "feel" about this and that. Not exactly hard science.

    When I do literature search for Chris Noble, I get the wonderful "Stochastic Recurrences of Jackpot Keno" (Computational Statistics & Data AnalysisVolume 40, Issue 1, 28 July 2002, Pages 189-205)

    The Keno kid!

    Face it, guys. You are a small gaggle of scientific losers. Would it be so hard to pause, get off the internet for a day, and ask yourselves: Hmmm, I've never really accomplished anything professionally in life. But, Duesberg, is a member of the National Academy of Science, is a tenured Professor at UC Berkeley, has published in major journals for over 30 years. Am I missing something?

    House of Numbers -- a great flick. Check it out.

  20. When I do a literature search on Bill I get images of a bird picking its ass.

    You are a true denialist Bill, and I will not get into a debate with you. Certainly not a pissing contest on publications. Anyone can go to pubmed and NIH databases to see for themselves. They will find my 218 papers in peer reviewed journals since 1986(mostly in public health and medicine - although there is no shame in publishing in rigorous psychology journals)and the 218 Peter Duesbeg has published since 1963 (I was a mere 2 years old and JFK was President).

    Bill, you AIDS Deniers can try to bluff a lot of things, but no one will believe that Duesberg is anything more than a scientist with great potential whose narcissism has brought him to the point of complete discredit and disgrace.

  21. Aww Bill! See here I answered your question in my previous post and you simply change the subject. Now you've gone and hurt my feelings. After all, I'd NEVER expect a denialist to change the subject when their BS is answered. Sigh.

  22. Seth, for sakes alive calm down, and if the fat hooker taped in the following happens to be you,

    then fix your mascara and lipstick, cause I think you smeared it all the way down your chin when you encountered my words.

    And if that is not you, then perhaps you should read my words again, as I did not personally call you a hooker, or even a lady of the night, and neither did Duesberg that I am aware of. I simply put it out there for public consideration as a possibility.

    But you do seem to be quite upset by my mere words of mentioning such a possibility, Seth, implying that you might indeed be a whore in denial. When people react as you just did, it is usually because of a guilty conscience.

    But don't let your guilty conscience get the best of you. Stay out of guilt and just intend to do better in the future.

    So, if you are doing such, perhaps it is time to stop selling your soul, Seth. Its not worth it to sell your self respect and dignity. You have a family to think of, and their reputations as well. Its just not worth it. You don't have to turn on that red light any more. You really don't.

  23. Free Willy said.. "They are all prostitutes, most of them" Not sure, but I think Seth Kalichman, who has made a bundle of his own hiv/aids psyche works was one of the guys that Duesberg was warning us about.

    Free Willy, how could I have mistaken you for saying that I am one of the prostitutes Duesberg was warning you about? I mean with the bundle I have made on AIDS and all. I must be in guilty denial to have misunderstood you. I am the one in need of anti-delusion meds, not you. Sorry for the mix up...

  24. Seth is bit defensive!

    They will find my 218 papers in peer reviewed journals since 1986(mostly in public health and medicine - although there is no shame in publishing in rigorous psychology journals)

    Of course, there's no shame in your psycho-babble, I mean, psychology work. Have at it.

    The point is, you know NOTHING about the science of AIDS. You are unqualified to comment on Duesberg's work. Can you imagine Duesberg sneaking into one of you East Coast Freudian conferences on existential gestalt?

    Look, human retrovirology was a pie-in-the-sky dream by the cancer warriors, lead by Dr. Robert Gallo to prove a viral cause of cancer. It never materialized. Not ever. HIV was Plan C or D, after all their cancer theories were debunked. Truly, they had viruses in search of a disease.

    The reason they despise Duesberg is because he refused to join the charade.

    Just say Nyet to bogus human retroviruses!

    House of Numbers -- A great documentary!

  25. "ZZZzzzzzzzz"

    The collective sound of students at UConn taking a Kalichman class!

    Also "rigorous psychology journals" is kinda like "military intelligence" or "jumbo shrimp" -- a self-cancelling phrase.

  26. Wow, Bill! That is a pretty big load of pseudoscience you just spouted there. Viruses never cause cancer? Really? I see you still ignored my previous reply to your comment. No big surprise. It happens a lot when denialidiots like you face actual science. So tell me Bill, if Seth is unqualified, having worked with AIDS related issues for decades, what qualifies you? Does "Bill" have a degree in science? Did you even complete high school? Or are you just another biological-illiterate swallowing the drivel from denialist sites without a second though? Given your question "How come AIDS doctors don't detect actual infectious HIV in their patients?" combined with your inability to accept an answer counter to your preconceived notions, the latter seems so much more likely.

  27. Bill,
    Do you not see just how crazy and ridiculous your statements are?
    You say that Seth has "some papers" published and then get pissed when he points out your lazy research by correcting you and stating that he has 218 papers in major journals.
    Also, Bill, your arguement gets better when you state that you found NO papers by Snout or Poodlestomper. UHM, maybe because those are their middle names. Maybe if you searched by their proper FIRST name you would come up with something! Idiot!
    Now, Bill, tell us about your publishing accomplishments. And I don't mean where your name has been published in Restraining Orders.

  28. Bill said: "When I do a literature search for "Snout," I get zero."

    Well you obviously haven't been looking in the right places.

    Haven't you even checked out the Rethinking AIDS 2009 Strategic Plan published by the RA board just last month?

  29. Why on God’s great flat Earth would an AIDS Denialist consider AIDS behavioral science ‘real science’? How can anyone scientifically study the transmission of a mythical virus?

    Bill, if you liked House of Numbers, you’ll love these

    David Cole in Auschwitz

    The 9/11 Chronicles: Part One, Truth Rising

    Henry Bauer and the Disproof of HIV/AIDS Theory

    Obama Birth Certificate Fraud Proof

  30. You have to feel sad for Bill.

    He has totally bought into AIDS denialism.

    He actually admires the scientific mind of David Crowe, with his two BS degrees in science and math. You know, Crowe would have been a scientist except he got side tracked by computers!

    Yep, that’s his story.

    AIDS Deniers live in a bubble. When Maggiore died of AIDS some people thought AIDS Denialism would end.

    They underestimated just how entrenched the likes of Bill are and how invested the likes of Duesberg, Rasnick, and Bauer are in keeping the stroking of their old limp egos going.

    House of Numbers is just the latest in AIDS Denialist antics.

  31. Oh Billy, its medication time.

  32. Oy Vey -- the loons have arrived.

    Can you dimwits follow simple logic?

    1. Dr. Peter Duesberg is well-published virologist, and member of the National Academy of Science -- the elite community of scientists who only admit the best of the best.

    2. Dr. Seth Kalichman is a PSYCHOLOGIST. He is unqualified to review Duesberg's work.

    3. Chris Noble aka "the Keno Kid" is a computer scientist. He is unqualified to review Duesberg's work.

    4. Poodle Stomper and Snout are pseudonyms of two losers, who have a modicum of science in their academic backgrounds. Big whoop.

    5. DeShong is, well, DeShong -- another loser.

    Watching you guys comment on Duesberg's illustrious scientific career, is like watching drunk, fat softball fans criticize Barry Bonds.

    Please, for God's sake, publish a peer-review paper on this topic, so that it can be properly critiqued or shut the f%ck up.

  33. Ok, I stopped laughing.

    The ultimate denial…Duesberg's scientific career is 'illustrious'

    If this is illustrious, I will gladly keep my obscurity.

    Time magazine April 2000,8599,43510,00.html

    Science Dec 9, 2004

    HIV Denier Duesberg Scheduled
    To Debate Horowitz

    Newsweek, Aug 28, 2000 The Hiv Disbelievers

    New Scientist June 22 2009

    Top 12 Worst Predictions About Future

  34. Billy, can you follow simple logic:

    1. Peter Duesberg is a chemist. He has no medical training whatsoever, and has never conducted original research into HIV or AIDS. He has no expertise in this area whatsoever.

    2. He published a number of speculative pieces based largely on his understanding of the epidemiology of HIV and AIDS. Whatever his grasp of cell chemistry might be, his grasp of epidemiology is worse than woeful, almost as laughable as that of Henry Bauer.

    3. Initially his speculations were read carefully, despite the fact they are entirely meritless. He was even given a whole issue of Genetica to edit, on the forlorn hope that he might either say something sensible or shut up. Then the scientific community cottoned on to the fact that he had become a full-blown loony crank (it happens to scientists sometimes)and generally ignored him.

    4. This has driven him even more nuts. He and his closeknit band of supporters have taken to writing crazy books, making manipulative propaganda films and setting up websites to target a scientifically lay audience with their lethal disinformation. Others have undertaken bizarre legal stunts that have universally backfired on them.

    5. Unfortunately, despite the fact the entire scientific community regard Duesberg and his followers (and also his rivals in Perth) with the utmost contempt, his ideas briefly gained traction in various places, including in South Africa, where the resulting health policy paralysis has cost over 300,000 lives.

    6.Fortunately there has since been an outbreak of sanity there, but the damage has been done, and lots of people are starting to hold Duesberg and his fellow denialists reponsible for this and other denialist-caused catastrophes.

    7. No doubt drawing on his experience working with disinformation campaigns for the tobacco industry, Duesberg's followers at RA have followed the manufactured controversy playbook in their latest venture to try to distract attention from their role in creating one of the worst public health disasters of recent time. The product? House of Numbers.

    8. Get it now?

  35. Billy,
    I don't know about Snout but I have my MS in molecular biology and currently do genetics research at a university. From Snout's previous posts it is clear to anyone with an IQ higher than a rock that he knows his science. Out of curiosity Bill, what exactly is it you do? Do you even have a GED yet? Did you graduate high school? Why is it you claim Seth is unqualified to comment on AIDS when you will not give your qualifications? Why is it when someone answers your questions that you change the topic? Is it just that it is easier to avoid truth and wallow in your denialism?

  36. Nice cherry-picking, Seth!

    If you were honest, you would cite his peer-reviewed work in his chosen field of cancer and virology -- a bit more rigorous than your field of psychobabble, no?

    --P H Duesberg, Physical properties of Rous Sarcoma Virus RNA PNAS 1968 60:1511-1518

    --PH Seeburg, C Moscovici, PH Duesberg, Tripartite structure of the avian erythroblastosis virus E26 transforming gene, Nature 306, 391 - 395 (24 November 1983

    --LH Wang, P Duesberg, K Beemon, PK Vogt, Mapping RNase T1-resistant oligonucleotides of avian tumor virus RNAs,Journal of Virology, 1975 October; 16(4): 1051-1070

    And, of course, his greatest:

    ---P Duesberg, HIV is not the cause of AIDS, Science 29 July 1988:,Vol. 241. no. 4865, p. 514.

    That's Proceedings of National Academy, Nature, Science and Journal of Virology.

    Where's your publications in these top journals?

    I agree with you on one thing: You will retain your obscurity, because you've accomplished absolutely zilch in this world, Seth.


  37. I don't know Bill, I seem to have your attention.
    Thanks for providing us with so much of your Crazy...we appreciate it!

  38. Bill,
    And pray tell, where are yours? Surely you must have publications, right? Do you do anything other than spout out BS, get corrected, then ignore the corrections? Do you forget that despite Duesberg's not having published anything credible in the past, oh 20 some years, that there are hundreds of real scientists publishing thousands of papers on HIV in nothing but credible journals (not medical hypothesis)? No? You're just going to focus on a deranged has-been? OK then, have fun!
    PS feel free to read the paper I referred to on determining infectious viral load in patients. It may be helpful to you if you can understand it, especially since you claimed it wasn't being done. Toodles!

  39. Poodle Stomper claims he has an "MS in molecular biology and currently do genetics research at a university"

    And, yet he prances around on the internet under the chosen name, "Poodle Stomper?" Mature, no?

    You sound like a $10/hour Post Doc. See how far putting "Poodle Stomper" on your CV gets you in the University.

    So, what have you published in the field of Genetics? Which journals have accepted your impressive body of work.

    Even if what you claim is true, you're like a third--string shortstop in the minor leagues criticizing Duesberg's all-star, Hall of Fame work for over 40 years.

  40. Bill
    Take your meds and stay on topic, or I will have to stop posting your comments. Please. Focus. On topic.

  41. I'm just trying to wrap my head around why a psychologist thinks he is now and expert in Immunology, Virology, Microbiology, and Molecular Biology.... I think maybe he has simply found himself a niche' market and a way to earn some credibility amongst the pharma lobbyists... I bet you don't think Paxil was a lie either, (with its claims of non-addiction) nor did it aggrivate symptoms... I hate to say it but one day... it will be you who go down as denialists... Simply for believing that science is static and unchanging and that its not prone to grave mistakes... particularly when person interests are involved.

  42. let me clarify. I do not pretend to be a virologist. But I do trust the science and not the denialist frauds. I am a psychologist, and denialism falls in my area of expertise. This blog is not about the science of HIV it is about AIDS denialism. Thanks

  43. Great quotes, thank you for sharing. I will make sure that I will see the movie. I like the non-subtle ways you were trying to nudge your readers to not see the movie.

    Also, thanks to commenter who linked to Henry Bauers lecture. Great stuff!

  44. Bill,
    See, not that it really matters but yes, I actually do have publications in genetics in credible peer reviewed journals. You however seem to still be lacking a GED. As for Duesberg, his past publications before he went nutty doesn't make him any more credible that any other denialist sources. The fact of the matter is that there is no data to support his BS hypothesis. It doesn't take a genius to understand this although you clearly are having trouble grasping this concept. So please Bill, your qualifications? I showed mine, show yours...or will you simply skirt the subject yet again. Oh and please feel free to respond to the correction I made on your question of: "How come AIDS doctors don't detect actual infectious HIV in their patients?" Have you realized the foolishness of this question now?

  45. I am highly offended!
    I am NOT just "another loser"!
    I am sure you know me from descriptions made by other (equally respected) denialists.
    I am also, mentally unhinged and unbalanced as well as suffering from AIDS dementia!
    Please get it right next time, Billy.

  46. Bill, I'm kind of puzzled why you think a qualifications-based pissing contest would be somehow favorable to the denialist cause.

    Duesberg has never worked with HIV, and has no expertise whatsoever with AIDS. He has no medical training, and has never legitimately treated a patient - and yet has taken it on himself to provide lethally ill-informed medical advice to individuals and public health advice to at least one government.

    He is, in short, a charlatan, a poseur, and one who has caused untold damage to human health.

    His main arguments, like those of Henry Bauer, are based on his inept misreading and sometimes outright misrepresentation of epidemiology. He has not even a basic education in this discipline, and it shows in the drivel he tries to pass off as his "work" on HIV/AIDS. Like his mate Henry he is, in this area, a deluded and dangerous crank. And like most cranks he has absolutely no insight into his own incompetence.

    Nor, it seems, do his followers.

  47. Bill, what are your qualifications?

    Are they good enough to justify your criticisms of Gallo and thousands of other AIDS scientists?

    Or is that a different story?

    Of course it's not like HIV Denialists to be consistent in the arguments.

  48. The "Keno Kid" has finally arrived.

    I haven't criticized Gallo or thousands of other AIDS scientists. I've seen House of Numbers, and expressed my opinion that it's a very good, important movie.

  49. Thanks for coming back to the point of the thread Bill, House of Numbers. I agree, everyone should see this film because it shows AIDS Deniers at their most conning and propagandizing yet. The quotes from I posted above pretty much illustrate the gist of what the AIDS Denialists and pseudoscientists have to say. In addition, you get some basic facts of AIDS that Director Leung did not edit out – although he does couch them between denialisms to create the illusion of a debate. You know, I took such good notes, I thought I might share a few gems here…

    Jim Curran: I mean the evidence is “incontrovertible”. HIV Causes AIDs.

    HIV infection is diagnosed now with routine laboratory tests for which there are criteria for diagnosis established by the manufacturer, [and the] FDA.

    Anthony Fauci: When you put the combined findings of the initial characterization as a distinct retrovirus isolated by Montagnier and his group together with Gallo linking the virus to being the cause of AIDS and you put those things together and that is how we have a confirmation of the causative agent of AIDS and mainly HIV.

    There have been a number of theories to what the origin of HIV/AIDS is. One of them was a theory that certainly turned out to be completely incorrect that it is a lifestyle phenomenon.

    Don Francis: Everyone who is infected with HIV would like to deny it. It’s a bad prognosis. It means you are going to take drugs for the rest of your life etcetera, etcetera. So there are people who would like to say. “Ah I’m one of the people who tested positive, but I am not going to get the disease.”

    Anyone who wants to know about AIDS Denialism should see this film. You even get extended play of Christine Maggiore living the lie within months of her death from AIDS.

  50. Can someone explain why Henry Bauer and David Rasnick were not shown in the film?

  51. Seth,
    What did Maggiore say on the video? Did it mention that she died of AIDS in the credits or just gloss over that part?

  52. Well, if David was on camera there wouldn't have been anyone to hold the boom mike. Or to supervise proceedings and make sure the film follows the RA disinformation playbook.

    The reason Henry wasn't in the film is obvious if you check out his youtube videos:

    Not even the best editing money can buy could make him appear credible.

  53. Seth writes:

    "This blog is not about the science of HIV it is about AIDS denialism."

    Man, that's just stupid. That's like a White Southerner in 1965, saying, this blog is not about the merits of civil rights, it's about the N%$^@er lovers.

    The best distilation of why you scientific morons are warped, comes from the written words of Dr. John Moore at the HUffington Post.

    Commenter William Manning asks:

    So, Dr. Moore, what evidence would falsify the viral theory of AIDS?

    John Moore Responds:

    Nothing. The causative role of HIV in AIDS is an established fact.

    John Moore, one of the most distinguished AIDS researchers there is, cannot even answer the basic, most fundamental question in science. The question wasn't whether the viral theory of AIDS has been FALSIFIED. The question was whether the viral theory of AIDS is FALSIFIABLE.

    If it's not even falsifiable, then's it's not science. It's pure dogma and politics.

  54. Bill, your google skills are as poor as your scientific understanding.

    You brought up the point of credentials and qualifications. What are yours? Or are they suddenly not important? What are Michael Geiger's credentials?

    I tired of the silly weasel worded Denialist rhetoric. You're not criticizing Gallo. You're just saying HON is a good film. Celia Farber and Brent Leung aren't denying anything. They're just asking questions. The Perthies are claiming that HIV doesn't exist. They're just saying theres no evidence for it's existence.

    Yeah right. Ahmadinejad isn't denying anything. He's just asking questions. Ahmadinejad isn't saying that the Holocaust never happened. He's just saying that there's no evidence.

  55. Maggiore makes a few appearances. The classis is about 30 minutes into the movie when diagnoses and testing are questioned.

    “In 1992 I was encouraged by a doctor to take what is called an HIV test as a matter of social responsibility and I was shocked and devastated and horrified when the results came back positive. It was one of those moments that everyone fears… it was one of those moments that everyone fears their whole life..a week later I take the same test to an AIDS specialist (they show on screen a test from 2/24/92 for a Dr. Heberg that show a positive ELISA and Positive Westrn Blot. Reactive for P24 and gp120/160, non-reactive p31, p41, p51, p55, p66) he looks at it and says ‘this isn’t a positive test. I don’t know what this test means.”

    This is a remarkable segment because this woman has died of AIDS shows and lived in denial shows us her indisputably positive HIV test result. It is a beautiful depiction of why we call this denialism. It is an encapsulated delusion. She was perfectly able to refute the facts staring her in the face and was able to find a quack in Peter Duesberg to corroborate her delusion. Amazing stuff!

    Now, a few minutes later she reappears and tells us she went and got retested and the results came back from the lab marked indeterminant.

    We are shown a section of lab report, this time no name or date are shown. The results are:

    Western Blot indeterm
    GAG: p55,or p24 or p18 REACTIVE
    ENV : gp160 or gp120 or gp41 REACTIVE
    POL: p65 or p51 or p32 NAGATIVE

    She says she got retested again right away and her results come back positive.
    We are shown a test from 9/23/93 Patient is a 40 year old female thwe Dr. is Wiesinger. No patient name, just an ID number NCL F46092

    Western Blot Positive – p17, p24, p31, gp41, p51, p55,p66, gp120/160 – all REACTIVE

    She then says, took it again, came back negative
    We see a bottom of a test result, this time patient name is Maggiore, Cristina on 8/5/93
    The results is
    HIV non-reactive

    She says “I took it again, positive’
    They show us a result from 9/29/93 with no patient name shown and no Patient number in the visible box.
    It is from Santa Monica and the result is:

    HIV-1 IgG Confirmation IB Positive
    HIV- AB IgG EIA 9.9

    About an hour into the movie Maggiore appears in what one could think is the very first time she ever spoke about her ordeal. It starts with a still of her, you know, one of those black and white shots by the stair case in the glory days when she was healthy. She says

    “When I was told I was HIV positive I accepted it…but only by having the courage to open minds { she then appears live and under her name it says that she tested HIV Positive in 1992, she releases a pained sigh) and open hearts {gets teary} to answer these questions are we ever going to know how to help people. to do what we need to do to help people.

    At the end, in the credits roll, Director Leung includes the following

    The filmmakers acknowledge with sadness the passing of three generous contributors to House of Numbers before the completion of the film
    Martin Delaney, Christine Maggiore, Hank Wilson (Their deaths were unrelated to HIV)

    I am telling you that you gotta see this film....really amazing stuff!

  56. Seth,
    I have to ask this at the risk of sounding silly; Are the dates shown on her tests in HON correct? The way you have it written out is:

    9/23/93 - Test "1" Positive
    8/5/93 -Test "2" Negative
    9/29/93 - Test "3" Positive

    Put in the correct chronological order that would be:
    8/5/93 -Test "2" Negative
    9/23/93 - Test "1" Positive
    9/29/93 - Test "3" Positive

    If you haven't made an error on the dates that would imply that either Maggiore lied about the tests (and HON wasn't smart enough to be able to to tell dates), made a mistake, or something doesn't jive about her story. Could you double check those dates and let us know what you find? Do you know if she ever published her test results publicly?

  57. I can only tell you what the movies showed and what Maggiore said.

    1. Took test to be socially responsible 2/24/92 was told positive. Took result to AIDS specialist and told it did not mean she was positive.

    2. Retested and results shown are Interderm, but no name or date shown

    3. 9/23/93 retested confirmed positive – no name, patient ID

    4. 8/5/93 retested HIV negative Maggiore on result

    5. 9/29/93 retested confirmed positive, no name but in Santa Monica

    That is what they show and it matches up with her story as she tells it… bear in mind this happens really fast. It requires a team of people with years of extensive training in note taking to get this stuff down. But I am 100% confident it is correct.

    If we only believe those that have her name visible...we have

    2/92 HIV+
    8/93 HIV-
    9/93 HIV+

    The details of the tests and their results are shown in the my above comment. You guys can sort this out of you want. Just remember, movies are magic. If you need help working out the biochemistry, I am sure Bill can join in.

  58. Is Christine Maggiore's convoluted HIV testing story relevant? Her death certificate says she died of conditions that are definitely the result of AIDS. So who cares about her lies?

  59. "Is Christine Maggiore's convoluted HIV testing story relevant? "

    Not really, no. There is no doubt that she died of AIDS (except to those in extreme denial). I'm just curious whether the shuffling of test dates means that HON used non-Maggiore tests (which would be deceptive), whether the tests are hers and she lied, or something else. But no, it doesn't change reality nor the fact that she did indeed die of AIDS.

  60. Bauer is now citing Hans Tolzin as an expert on immunology.

    Tolzin is a qualified dairy farmer and a general-purpose anti-vaccination germ-theory-of-disease-denying crank.

    Is there no limit to Bauer's stupidity? Perhaps Bauer really is doing a Sokal.

    I wonder whether Bill will complain about Tolzin's lack of relevant credentials.

  61. Martin Delaney, Christine Maggiore, Hank Wilson (Their deaths were unrelated to HIV)

    Yeah. Leung isn't denying anything!

  62. "Perhaps Bauer really is doing a Sokal."

    I've wondered this about Henry too. His claims seem to be getting more and more bizarre, almost as if he is begging for someone to call him on an elaborate hoax. As one of the few people in the world who's actually read The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, that's been my impression...

    ...on which note, supposing a certain occasional blogger was attending RA09 (discreetly under his offline identity), what is the one question he/she could ask Henry snout to face that would make it clear whether he is serious or merely pulling off an extended Sokal to keep him entertained during his retirement?

  63. Poodle Stomper, you're right. According to the film, Maggiore traveled back in time and took the 9/23/93 test "again" on 8/5/93.

  64. Snout

    Henry Bauer is not hoaxing, I think that is for definite.

    Bauer has spent his entire carrer being a big green monster in a very small loch. He has always had a following of a few off beat scientific explorers. Somehow he got into AIDS Denial and has attracted an even larger crowd.

    He is like Fred Leuchter who lived in obscurity until becoming intoxicated with attention from Holocaust Deniers.

    His craving for attention seems to drive him. So you may ask him how he first got into AIDS. That would be interesting to know.

    I envy anyone who can attend RA unknown. I blew that when Joey came out. So for me, RA will probably be more contentious.

    I doubt Henry will talk to me. But if he does, I plan to ask him 2 things: (1) Can he answer the question posed to him by a college undergrad regarding his use of gonorrhea and Syphilis as STDs that do not line up with HIV epi-stats rather than HSV or Hep-B? And (2) Can I get a picture with him to add to my collection?

  65. Perhaps you can get a photograph with Bauer if you wear this to the RA group delusion session.

    For those of you who can read German the Esowatch website is a good source of background material for some of the German cranks

    Denies that influenzavirus and poliovirus cause disease. Supporter of Germanic New Medicine. Thinks barcodes have a negative effect on foods and that laser scanned products lose energy.

    The man is a total nutter and yet Bauer is happy to cite him, an astrologer and a mathematician as experts in immunology.

  66. Anonymous,
    It gets better. Not only did Maggiore time travel for her tests she also seems to change birthdays. One of the tests (the third result they show) is for a 40 year old female. Since Magiore was born 07/25/1956 and the test was from 9/23/1993 she would have been 37 at the time. It makes me wonder how many other bogus "documents" HON used to try to support their BS. In any case it certainly demonstrates a high probability of outright (and poorly planned) deception on HON's part or at the very least an illiteracy concerning dates. Of course I'm willing to be convinced otherwise ;-)

  67. So where have Michael and Bill gone?
    As the Denialism blog taught us long ago, denialists create logical fallacies. reading the above comments, the all too familiar pattern is repeated;

    Denialist (Bill) says something wacky...

    Commenter or blogger (Snout -- or Poodlestomper/Chris/JTD) corrects their mistake...

    Bill says same thing, changes argument slightly...

    Snout again corrects their mistake...

    Bill says something even wackier, says it disproves all of a field of science...

    Snout, exasperated, corrects it and threatens disemvowelment...

    Bill restates original wacky argument...

    Snout's head explodes, calls denialist an idiot.

    Bill says he won because commenter or blogger resorted to ad hominem.

    Bill disappears.

    So predictable.

  68. The movie itself is like a 90 minute long denialist blog posting. Or like a 90 minute long Celia Farber article. Has anyone tried to contact the credited "writer," Llewellyn Chapman?

  69. First of all, I love the question to Bauer about having your picture made with him. Very Kathy Griffin!
    Also, I think myself and as many people who have been on HIV meds at least ten years or more should show up with our lab results showing our liver enzymes intact, high T~Cells, low viral load, no wasting syndrome, no body dysmorphia and show them just how "toxic" those meds are.

  70. It does seem unfair to pull people’s words out of context. Imagine only showing part of what I said in House of Numbers, such as the line…

    “I was shocked and devastated and horrified when the results came back positive. It was one of those moments that everyone fears… it was one of those moments that everyone fears their whole life.”

    Can you imagine a remix of House of Numbers that actually makes Peter Duesberg sounds like HIV treatments save lives? Hmmm, a remix of House of Numbers, whose idea was that?

  71. As someone on the fence, I'd like to see someone actually make an argument to try to convince me. All I see here is insulting dismissal of AIDS deniers and comparisons to Holocaust deniers. When I come at an argument from a third party perspective, the first thing I look for is which side is shouting insults? Since, they are usually the ones that are wrong. If it is so obvious that HIV causes AIDS, then you should be able to simply present the facts instead of just trying to undermine the credibility of anyone who doesn't agree with you.

  72. Anonymous
    Thanks for posting.
    I must say that when it comes to HIV causing AIDS, the validity of HIV testing, and the effectiveness of HIV treatments, there is no fence.

    There is a lot of confusion caused by a small group of AIDS Denialists. If you really want answers, then I suggest doing 2 things.

    1. Go to the websites I list to the right under the heading 'Learn more about AIDS' Check out their credibility (not just credential) and the science behind what they say.

    2. Go to the websites to the right under the heading 'A World of AIDS Denialism' and do the same.

    You see back and forth insults here because this blog is about AIDS Denialism not about proving the science of AIDS. We try to tone down the insults, but AIDS denialists can be pretty frustrating. We do not host any pseudodebates here. The information is out there....based on thousands of clinical, epidemiological, and basic science studies. Ultimately, you have to sort this our for yourself. I am happy to help, but I believe the answers are pretty much at your finger tips.

    You also might find my book helpful in understanding AIDS denialism. Links for the book are at the top of this blog and all of the royalties from Denying AIDS are donated to buy HIV meds in Africa.

    Thanks for visiting.

  73. Mr. Kalichman - When I read your post October 1st post, in which you transcribed, word for word, some sections of "House of Numbers," I was amused by your transparently disingenuous self-assessment ("well, I am a really good note taker"). I assumed someone with more interest in your drearily predictable and annoyingly shrill little website would call out your childish boast for the lie that is is. I didn't give it a second thought. However, with the recent web posting of a complete transcription of the film, ponderously annotated in agonizing detail, I think it time to point out the obvious; you and your comrades-in-arms have obtained, without permission or legal authorization, a copy of the unreleased film. You may have gotten it from a festival screener/employee, you may have surreptitiously recorded it at a screening, it matters not. What is pertinent to the discussion on this particular blog is the simple fact that you
    have shown yourself to be a braggart, a liar, and a thief. This is beyond dispute. I find it personally distasteful to be so blunt, but since the discourse on this site, (and others like it where you are omni-present), is so foul, so narcissistic and vitriolic, I can forgive myself for a slight lapse in civility. Braggadocio can be amusing, dissembling (or "misspeaking" a la Hillary Clinton) is ubiquitous these days, but thievery is far more damning, and far more revealing of one's true character. Or lack thereof.

  74. Fender52 you make a very wild and damning statement. Can you back it up? Of course not.
    What is up with you denialists throwing out such defamatory, libelous comments lately?
    Just like Elizabeth Ely on Sonnabend's POZ blog throwing out libelous statements and Celia Farber on the Spectator UK making libelous statements and character assasinations, you are doing the same here. None of you are backing up those statements with even a semblance of facts. Are you all asking to be sued? You better watch out because the deserved lawsuits you ask for will not be a Publicity Stunt like the bogus suit filed by Farber back in May!!

  75. The producers of House of Numbers consistently refuse to provide advance screeners of their film. This is a practice uncommon in the film festival circuit: Most producers (though there are exceptions) WILL provide screeners prior to screening.

  76. It' moronic because Aids disidents are idiots, proof on!

  77. Actually you guys do insult people! Even a genius ask questions. This whole fucking world has been a lie. You all need to start doing more research and stop believing everything you hear! Just like you all believe the Media! Most of you have no souls! There sold!You guys get very offended when people actually look into conspiracies and shit. This satanic shit will end soon. Christ is coming. Fuck you money lover's. Your time is coming!

  78. There is evidence that even the government is lying about HIV as it is. It says on that the Western Blot test is a confirmatory test, when in reality it is not. Nothing that recommends a follow up is confirmatory. If the government is lying about AIDS or HIV testing, why wouldn't others? Honestly, I read early on in these comments that people like calling others denialists in an almost phobic way. Christ, I suppose all Russians are Communists, too? If people try to disprove a norm, they are automatically wrong? House of Numbers uses logic and facts, not damn none sense. Even Gallo retracted his research as false, the man that labeled HIV/AIDS. Stop being sheep and prove shit before you believe it.