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.

Friday, June 4, 2010

A Sincere Message to Seth Kalichman and like minded people

Posted at QA, Questioning AIDS Forum
by positivenegative, June 3, 2010

It's a crying shame you hold your position in the face of too much honest and sincere conversation where people, whether you agree or not, are trying to fight for their lives. You're deliberate and arrogant viewpoint is an insult to people who just want answers. Most importantly you insult yourself.

When I first got diagnosed I read your book because I did not want to deny anything. I wanted all the information I could possible have and I sincerely took your words to heart but in the final equation you're judgmental and accusatory attitude makes me lose any respect I might have had for you.

If you could only take one ounce of genuine interest that many "dissidents" have you just might have a chance to redeem yourself but your obvious criticism of "denialists" and especially those who actually have to deal with their mortality lacks kindness and most certainly compassion.

You're like George Bush bringing democracy by the barrel of a gun. Your hardcore insistence is relentless and very unfortunate indeed. If you are truly on the right path, especially as a psychologist, you are simply manipulating people in the guise of helping them and is just plain rude. Everyone dies and so will you.

You're self-righteous in the face of way too many honest questions. Don't try to take away peoples liberty to investigate and ask questions as if the hiv/aids issue is locked down and sealed asthe truth. It's obvious that this issue is far more complicated than you have ever given credit.

If dissidents and denialists are so wrong then why wouldn't you practice compassion and understanding for those who may truly be ignorant? If someone came to you with any other disease, would you treat them in the same way as you do those who are affected by hiv/aids or better yet, any other life threatening disease?

If you noticed someone on the side of the road who just crashed their car and possibly broke their back wouldn't you try to stabilize them and help them with their confusion or would you criticize them because they want to get up and walk?

Stop being so righteous. It's unbecoming. That's a good word for you. Unbecoming. The world is becoming but for whatever reason, whether it be money or maybe it's just an immature emotional state you are addicted to I don't know.

Be that as it may please just try to change your appeal if you really do care about people as you claim. It's time for you to change your tune. In my view you aren't helping anyone and you are only embarrassing yourself.

It's time for you to realize that you are the denialist. I'm not even asking you to agree or disagree but rather just consider the experience of so many people who are living life for years and year without drugs. Yes, people get sick and die, like in the beginning of the AIDS crisis with AZT, and obvious other issues and co-factors you simply just can't deny unless you're the one in need of help.

How can you just tow a line by standing on one side criticizing the perceived other side? There is a lot of gray area and the people you criticize are more open to scientific inquiry then you have ever demonstrated. Don't let pride get the best of you, that is of course, if you have a best of you.

Even Luc Montagnier plays his tune out of both sides of his mouth. Why can't you? Stop being so hard core. Uh-gain, it's unbecoming.


  1. Just when I was getting bored and wondering why these people have gone quiet on the crazy front, this little gem pops up!

    I do not even know what to say about this person and his/her strange impression of you, Seth! Although, I believe that the analogy of HIV/AIDS to a broken back says it for me!! Yes, indeed.

  2. Being a regular and content patient at Europe's second biggest HIV clinic is enough "proof" I need to know that there is no "alternative" or "dissident" viewpoint when it comes to HIV disease. People who have fallen into this mindset, thinking they are somehow untouchable or special, that the disease won't get them, are attempting to deny their own fate.

    I feel sorry for them; I feel contempt towards these self-serving narcissists who spew their psuedo-science and meme-ridding quote-mining across the internet. They are unable to face up to their guilt about contracting HIV and become obsessed with denying their illness.

    These people sow doubt in the minds of others leading them to fear and question the overwhelming consensus over fundamental truths about the virus. This sets a dangerous precedent and ultimately does harm even if that's perhaps not the intended consequence.

    Its not cool to deny the truth. Its pathetic, its wimping-out and ultimately failing as a human being.

  3. I am a bit surprised you posted that, Seth, without one word of explanation of your own. People who have not read your book, and other books, may not realize that your book was not about HIV and AIDS it was only about the psychology of AIDS denial. More specifically it was about the psychology of those people who tell the lies that enable or support AIDS denial.

    Denial is a natural human response to any bad news. Tell someone there spouse just died and the first word out of their mouth is likely to be "No!!!". If they are never shown any evidence of the death, they may be able to remain in denial, holding out hope that the spouse is just missing and will come back. Shown adequate evidence of the death, the denial may shift to knowing that they will be reunited in their afterlife in heaven.

    People who are diagnosed with cancer or any other serious illness should expect to go into denial. But people who tell lies, such as claiming that cancer does not exist, or that they have a simple cure for cancer in order to take advantage of that natural human response are a different breed. Peter Duesberg might truly believe that the "gay lifestyle" or drug abuse can cause severe immune disfunction despite there being no evidence to support that belief and much evidence against it. But he very clearly knows he is lying when he says that no retrovirus has ever harmed any human or animal out side the lab. If he knows he is telling lies about retroviruses, it is likely that he also knows he is telling lies about the gay lifestyle.

  4. @jtdeshong You, of all people, should not be talking about "these people" and crazy etc. The author of this letter is not a Peter Duesberg or a Valendar Turner, telling lies aimed at killing people. The author is a person who has been diagnosed as HIV seropositive, and went searching in all the wrong places apparently in his or her attempt to decide what to do about that diagnosis.

    It is critical to make a clear distinction between people who are mislead by liars, and people who tell lies aimed at misleading vulnerable people. They are not all "those people", they are all individuals. Each has his or her own story to tell.

  5. I was struck by this posting. I was going to do a point by point rebuttal, but I thought it would be better to post it as is; letting the note speak for itself. I too think it is sad.

    I am also not pleased with some of my own handling of these people. It is true that I have focused on the crazies and frauds who propagate Denialism... the Duesbergs, Nulls, Raths, Rasnicks, Bauers etc. Exposing the frauds runs the risk of alienating their followers, which is not my goal. The truth is I feel bad about that and would take back things I have said to and about the Martins, Maggiores, Sticklys, Bills, Geigers etc.

    When I was researching Denying AIDS a former 'dissident' told me about how Christine Maggiore was able to remain calm and collected in the 'debate'. She had this passionate stance and yet remained seemingly rational. Her message was powerful because she seemed open and truth seeking.

    I have been angry with the crimes against humanity perpetrated by Duesberg, Crowe, the Perth People, Rasnick etc. I also get quite frustrated with universities, academia, and other institutions that provide shelter to these people and give them false credibility. There should be a line to academic freedom (not free speech, there is a difference) -- the line is harming the public with intentional misinformation. Duesberg and his cronies obviously cross that line.

    In my frustration and anger I have often lost the message of reason. By losing the message, I have turned people away, like the writer of this note. For that I am sorry.

  6. A little gift for all:
    I had Google take down Clarkie's blog yesterday. You're welcome!!
    Methods are secret but the results are successful!!

  7. Kralc, a timely event in this thread.

    Although I am happy to see less AIDS denialism online, I would not have had Clark removed from the Internet. Why? Because contrary to what the Deniers say, I am not promoting censorship and I do not promote limits on free speech.

    Clark is an internet nut case. No one would give him an ounce of credibility. So frankly, who gives a crap what he says. If anything, he makes the case for restricting Internet use in psychiatric facilities.

    But if Clark had a job, especially a job that entrusted him with dissemination of knowledge, conducting research, promoting science, public health etc., the story would be different.

    For example, I do not think Henry Bauer's blog should disappear either. However, Virginia Tech should revoke his tenure, fire him, ban his use of the their name. And whoever gave him his PhD in Nessieology should strip him of that too.

    But hey man, thanks for letting us know. Good news is I have plenty of printed pages from Clark's rants for my archives.

  8. Excellent point Seth. I appreciate that and actually agree with you. However, here's the thing: I wanted to remove it so he would start ranting even more garbage- like "Big Pharma had operatives remove me, etc". Then he would show even further amplified idiocies. I'm sure they will be coming shortly. I wasn't afraid of his trash being taken seriously. It is just that he has gone out of his way recently to try and make trouble for people by harassing their parents, their employers, etc. I figured I'd give him a nice token of good will because, although false, he thinks that his blog is important, etc.

  9. Here's an extreme example of the searching for anything but (unprotected) sex to blame HIV infection on: cologne ? FFS!!!

    Again from questioningaids forum ... all the sheep bleating about organic products and then this:

    "The Christmas before I tested positive, and I believe this was co-factor, I got a bottle of really good quality mens perfume and for a couple of months everybody was telling me how wonderful I smelled.

    It was sexy but I have rarely used any colognes or perfumes in my life but over that several months I did notice I wasn't feeling so well but of course I didn't make a connection until I learned about the thymus gland which is responsible for creating white blood cells that make the immune system what it is.

    The thymus gland sits right on top of the heart and every time I gave myself a spritz I pulled my collar out and sprayed right there on the most important gland in my body including the thinnest skin directly into my blood stream on my wrists and of course right on my carotid artery on my neck. "

  10. Seth, what kind of higher education employs the likes of Bauer ? Surely he brings shame on his employers ? I've been pondering why denialists and their friends are so homophobic.

    You'd have thought Berkeley too would by now be thinking of their repuation every time Duesberg's name is in the newspapers ? Moreover when its connected with bad science to support of apparantly far-right homophobic views on "gay lifestyles", surely this must be unacceptable ?

    I see Bauer is on record as saying "I regard homosexuality as an aberration or illness, not as an ‘equally valid life-style’ or whatever the current euphemism is." A senior academic at a UK who university tried line would be hounded out. What a toss pot.

    There was a Conservative candidate in the recent election who reckoned she could cure homosexuals. She didn't make it into parliament (despite having a strong chance). And the chap who was lined up as the next Home Secretary was demoted in the wake of some unguarded comments re the same topic made during the election.

    Oddly Bauer and Duesberg are emigrees from Europe yet they'd be not have be able peddle their unsavoury opinions were they in positions of responsibility in our universities.

  11. Yeah, I agree with NM and Dr Duke here - I think it's importanto make a distinction between people who are struggling to make sense of their diagnosis and the sociopaths who exploit them.

    I also agree with you Seth about the universities, academia, and other institutions that provide shelter to these people and give them false credibility. Whether this happens through laziness or neglect or a misguided sense of "academic freedom", such institutions carry the responsibility for the lies they allow to be told in their name.

    The latest example is, believe it or not, the Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology. Two recent issues have carried HIV/AIDS denialist articles, one by Ruggiero and the other co-authored by Mr Loch Ness Monster himself. Ostensibly they are about the low risk of HIV transmission in the dissecting room, but both Ruggiero and Bauer have used this relatively uncontroversial topic as a smokescreen to slip denialist idiocy into a (still currently) PubMed listed journal.

    Scanned copies of the articles can be found on Bauer's website:

    and Ruggiero's:

    Ruggiero managed to slip this piece of stupidity past the editors:

    "...HIV infection is not necessarily associated with AIDS and most HIV positive subjects do not develop AIDS provided they do not assume toxic drugs or engage in risky behaviours (Chamberland et al., 1995; Duesberg et al., 2003), whereas AIDS can occur even in the absence of HIV infection (Italian Ministry of Health official instruction No. 9 of April 29 1994)."

    Bauer's article is even stupider. He uses his article to claim a high level of false positive HIV diagnoses in South Africa, and that around 50% of people infected with HIV are "long term non-progressors".

    Both articles are thinly disguised rehashes of the themes in Duesberg/Bauer's and Ruggiero's recently withdrawn Medical Hypotheses articles.

    Of course, you've got to wonder why denialists are targeting an Italian anatomy journal with their garbage. Clearly someone is asleep at the wheel here to be publishing this sort of trash.

    Ruggiero's article, incidentally, is also available from Clark Baker's OSMJ website. Which should tell you something.

    See also:

  12. Snout
    The Editors of the Italian J of Anatomy and Embryology are not asleep. They are cashing in. Now that Med Hypotheses has been fixed, the pseudoscience of Bauer and Ruggiero requires payment to publish...

    Page charge
    Authors should be charged for pages, illustrations and tables; the printer, before typesetting, will send by fax or mail a quotation of the full cost in charge of the Author. If requested, the Editors may fournish a pro-forma invoice. Payment is requested before printing.

    Sorry about that... I should have warned you that you might wet yourself upon reading..

  13. I may be jaded from all the personal attacks I have endured from these people, but I do not believe "positivenegative" is being genuine and is no newbie as he/she is trying to appear. He/she showed up at about two weeks ago and started three posts right off the bat. It seems quite suspicious to me. And the posts did not ring true/genuine. This "open letter" tactic seems to be more of the same.

    But whether this person is genuine or not, his/her "open letter" alone is very strange. Why come out all of a sudden as a newbie to this dialogue already with a vendetta against Seth? Because he is an easy target for PN to get instant credibility among the set.

    Also, why post this supposed open letter at and not come straight to Seth's blog? That alone is quite devious and deceptive. Why not go straight to the horse's mouth?

    This person, for a newbie, is already displaying cunning, duplicitous games that just do not read as genuine.

    There is a snake in the hen house in the form of an instigator. This is one more poser.

  14. Now that Med Hypotheses has been fixed, the pseudoscience of Bauer and Ruggiero requires payment to publish...

    I thought that Med Hype was a pay-to-publish outfit, too. In any case, I don't think that's the issue.

    The denialists are trying to build a literature of pseudoscholarship, and preferably one that is searchable through PubMed. They are doing this in order to create the impression to their confused victims (like "positive/negative" above) that there is genuine scientific debate when in fact there is none.

    Bauer already has four HIV/AIDS-denialist articles published in JPandS, and these have been promoted as if they represented a credible strand of medical opinion. Their target audience is generally not aware that JPandS is a wingnut magazine put out by an extreme right wing libertarian political group, and is generally regarded as a joke in scientific circles.

    It. J. Anat. Embryol claims to be peer reviewed and has PubMed listing. If they are going to publish unutterable crap by kooks like Bauer then they need to be held accountable for that. At the very least, if you are going to knowingly publish such drivel you shouldn't expect your PubMed listing to be automatic.

    There is a serious ethical issue of accountability here. Those responsible for publishing this dross - whether deliberately or through incompetence - have been frankly negligent. They need to be called on this.

  15. Pay to publish is an issue, but you are right...not the central issue.
    Pubmed is central. I cannot believe these journals are in PubMed....but you are right...the Italian one is... Now that is something I will look into... hell I already have a letter that can be easily reworked!

  16. Back in December 2009, Ruggiero presented a poster at the annual congress of the Italian Association for Cell Culture in Firenze.

    The opening text is:

    HIV and AIDS.

    For more than 25 years it was assumed that HIV was the sole cause of AIDS. Although there have been a few voices of dissent since the early days (Science 1988: 241:514-17. J Biosci 2003: 28:383-412. See also: Bauer HH, "The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory"), in the past three years definitive evidence has accumulated demonstrating that HIV cannot be considered the (sole) cause of AIDS.

    In 2006, a large meta-analysis of ten years of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) demonstrated that "the virological response after starting HAART has improved steadily since 1996. However, there was no corresponding decrease in the rates of AIDS, or death" (Lancet 2006: 368:451-8).

    In 2008, Professor Luc Montagnier, after having been awarded the Nobel Prize, stated: "We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system" (quoted in the documentary "House of Numbers", 2009. URL: 04/ 0l/ house-of-numbers/), thus reversing the long-assumed cause-effect relationship between HIV and AIDS whereby HIV inevitably brings on AIDS.

    Therefore, HIV infection itself reflects an already deficient immune system; it is the immunodeficiency that causes chronic HIV infection and not vice versa, as commonly believed.

    Finally, a review in 2009 demonstrated that HIV has been present in humans since at least the early 19OOs, thus definitely ruling out the possibility that it could have been responsible for a syndrome that appeared only at the beginning of the 1980s (Curr Opi n HIV AIDS 2009: 4:247-52). Quite obviously, if HIV caused AIDS, then AIDS should have been observed in earlier periods, when the hygienic and nutritional conditions of human populations were much worse than in the 1980s (i.e. during the two world wars and the depression in between. The very fact that AIDS was never described before the 1980s despite the persistent presence of HIV in humans, clearly demonstrates that HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS."

    Ruggiero himself claimed on Henry's blog that the all the comments on the poster "...were highly positive and all the authorities there (academic, medical and military) were positive and encouraging. I doubt that we shall hear any comment by AIDS Truthers: all the references come from mainstream orthodox journals. The work was peer reviewed and accepted."

    Professor Sergio Capaccioli of the Associazione Italiana di Colture Cellulari tells us that "Prof. Marco Ruggiero has supplied all claims he reported in his abstract and poster with abundant citations of the relevant scientific peer reviewed international articles.
    This is all was required for our free scientific congress, which obviously need a scientific committee but reject any censorship, to accept Prof. Ruggiero's Abstract and poster."


    I have long suspected that Ruggerio's real agenda is to expose the academic incompetence and negligence of some of his Italian colleagues (and to expose Henry Bauer to ridicule along the way as a bonus).

    I'm still not sure, though. It's possible he is a genuine HIV/AIDS denialist. It's always hard to tell the difference between a real pseudioscientist and a parody.

    Either way, certain Italian medical academics are well overdue for a kick up the gluteus maximus.

  17. Although clarkie is an idiot in my book I think taking his blog down was a really dumb move, kralc... exactly the kind of fuel he percolates on...pfff. Oh well...

  18. Seth and Snout,
    Your discussion above about JPandS and other "pay to publish" journals masquerading via PubMed as legitimate, and the subsequent discussion about going thru proper channels to get them out of PubMed are completely legitimate! These types of publications give the appearance of legitimcay when there is none. However, this is exactly why positivenegative started this thread by calling Seth: "judgemental;accusatory;manipulative" and compared you quite erroneously and rudely to "George Bush"!

    Positivenegative is really the one being manipulative, judgemental and down right hypocritical by trying to paint legitimate tactics to bring the "honest discussion" that Postitivenegative claims he/she wants to everyone as if it is merely Seth (as scapegoat) being callous and uncaring and not treating dissidnets with "compassion"!!

    Do you think PN would see the above discussion as what it is? OR, as I pointed out, he/she is just another Denialist pushing a bullshit agenda?

    I definitely believe that PN would never agree that shutting down obvious lies and obvious liars as promoting EXACTLY the type of "honest discussion" that PN is screaming loudly and accusatorily about!

  19. I've noticed that other followers of pseudoscience feel personally attacked if you criticise either their beliefs or if you criticise the leaders of the movement. They can't separate their beliefs from their own personal identity. Hence if you criticise homeopathy then people who believe in homeopathy will feel as if they have been personally attacked. If you criticise Andrew Wakefield then parents of children with autism who belief that vaccines were responsible for the autism will feel personally attacked.

  20. JTD, impossible to know if PN is for real. But sort of think so. The thing about people who fall into denialism is that they cannot make the not so subtle distinctions between science and pseudoscience... Virus hunters and Nessie hunters, all the same to them. They actually think Rasnick and Null are scientists! Credentials =- credibility.
    Really sad.

    Chris, it is very personal for Denialists. You are right in saying that they cannot separate their beliefs from their identity. Just the same as delusions. It like the inability to separate fantasy from reality.
    Really even sadder.

  21. Hey
    Has anyone heard from Michael Geiger? I think he may have died, but I am not sure? Any news?

  22. Todd, I’m prepared to take PN at face value rather than assume malicious intent on his part. What he has written sounds authentically like someone struggling to make sense of a recent HIV diagnosis and, as Dr Duke mentioned, who has gone searching for answers in some of the wrong places.

    You don’t need to be a psychologist to see that PN is in distress at the moment, and is highly sensitive to perceived judgement and a lack of compassion. He’s probably feeling frightened and isolated and stigmatised. This is both a normal and understandable response to his recent experience. Hopefully he will work his way through this in time, but what he doesn’t need now is to be personally attacked. He’s dumping his distress on Seth because Seth is someone who has publicly stuck his head above the parapet to take on the HIV/AIDS denialist leadership.

    Unfortunately this is going to make him a target not only for the Duesbergs and Rasnicks and Bauers and Bakers of the world, but also for their confused followers who have invested psychologically in their pseudoscience, often as an understandable response to the distress of being diagnosed with HIV. I’m sure you know what it’s like to be such a target as well.

    So I’d be cutting PN a bit of slack here. The real bad guys are the denialist cognoscenti who cynically manipulate vulnerable people like PN for their own ideological agendas. They’re the ones who need to be held to account, because what they are doing is not only intellectually vacuous but also exploitative and profoundly unethical. Unfortunately taking on the main denialists is going to result in some flack from their followers. You’ve got to be prepared for that, and resist the temptation to attack the victims rather than the victimisers.

    And sometimes it’s hard to know where to draw the line.

  23. Seth, the harder you push for the orthodoxy, the harder the compensatory reaction by the dissident movement. what was neglected by the orthodoxy - due dilligence aND acceptable ethical research standards - has been suppressed ever since the 'proclaimed' epidemic. and is resurfacing every year stronger and stronger. there is nothing you can do about it.

  24. This notion that the AIDS Denial movement is gaining in strength and numbers is a complete fallacy. Those on the side of "ReThinking" are pushing this erroneous notion more and more.

    Just look at Jonathan Barnett screaming louder everyday about how popular his blog (a name I can not remember...again) and are. A few months back Henry Bauer went out of his way to compare and contrast the popularity of the "rethinking" sites to the "orthodox" sites.
    Celia Farber started that Facebook site to "Fight the Term Denial". But none of those sites are really popular. The difference b/w the numbers is negligible. Bauer's site and Seth's site are neck and neck. It is the same 200 people that are perusing all these sites.

    Even HoN fb page only has approximantly 3,000 "friends". Not a strong showing for a supposed movie that has taken this movement by storm and has been seen all over the world!!!

    It's all a smoke screen for those on the side of the ReThinkers just as the Fake Maggiore Autopsy Report which went absolutely nowhere!! People can smell bs and this "fad" is not gaining nearly the ground they want everyone to believe.

    It is actually crumbling. Farber has gone away. Clark Baker is very near to imploding! Duesberg is about to get his dues. The truth is gaining, not the lies. You can literally smell the desperation of the "ReThinkers".

  25. I am afraid you live in cloud coockoo land deshong. dissident sites despite all are growing in numbers, HON just was released on cable and amazon, duesberg is receiving quite some attention - even if negative - there is a good and increasing deal of coverage on fringe media picking up on this subject.

    the top down approach simply is no longer working and people are increasingly educating themselves by chosing those information sources that are more appealing to them. and that unfortunately excludes big pharma, main stream news including aidstruth.

    in increasing numbers big pharma, mainstream news including aidstruth are considered reliable news sources. is there a big outcry? no. will it change dramatically no. this paradigm shift is growing slowly and the follows the simple rules of dialects. thessis-antithesis-synthesis. the harder you fight this, the more will the other side compensate.

    this is not a debate of arguments. logic and emotion only is a small part in this tragedy - as a psychologist seth understands this. a great deal of big pharma's success is based on perceptions. perceptions which are not supported by facts - and more and more peopel catch on this.

    neither is this about conspiracies, nor are the dissidents holocaust deniers. event thought they disagree on many asepcts of their own theories, they do agree on some very important points: hiv can not be the cause of aids.

    and the more they are ridiculed, the more their dignity is attacked and their reputation questionined, the more sympathy they will receive from the general public. especially the american public is very fond of the 'Ășnderdog' who eventually succeeds.

    most dissidents that have signed up to Rethinking Aids are professionals, in many cases holding postgarduate degrees. and though that number is growing slowly, it is growing. and the same is true for HON. slow growth still equals growth. describing and ridiculing all of them as quacks only discredits aidstruth in the long term. as a psychologist seth should be aware of this.

    there are some serious questions that need answering such as african statistics, how exactly hiv causes cd4 cell depletion, isolation of hiv, and most of all that famous paper by gallo published in science mag in 1984.

    compared to the orthodoxy there are a handful of scientists in the dissident camp and their only defense are facts. all they have is their reputation, their brains and the desire to discover the truth. and they exchange information at sites such as it is all they have.

    yet facts stand up well against poor rhetoric and attacks against any ones dignity. and in addition to facts any one who follows this struggle can not but notice how the orthodoxy is behaving like goliath. and that is what this is all about, not hiv, but david versus goliath, an ever repeating epic struggle. and we all know who won that fight. all it takes is a tiny little sling.

  26. and to illustrate my points better:

    "Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some 4 million people. And that was not done by gas, it was done by ARROGANCE, it was done by DOGMA, it was done by IRGNORANCE.

    Look for those three hallmarks in the tragedy of HIV and of the many who died - and you know which side you need to be on.

  27. Your "handful of scientists in the dissident camp" are a joke. NONE of them have ever actually done HIV research! It is not even their chosen field of study. That is probably why "their only defense are facts" are completely misrepresented "facts" and all out lies. Those are not facts! Why else would Henry Bauer constantly, conistently and blatantly lie? Check out my blog, I have annihilated several of his posts. I have done the same to Crowe's "Isolation" bullshit and about 6 Liam Scheff posts.

    Your pseudo scientists are frauds and they have committed obvious scientific misconduct. I have two words for you on that front:
    Andrew Wakefield.

    Two more:
    Peter Deusberg

    Two more:
    Henry Bauer

    Two more:
    David Rasnick

    Two more:
    Harvey Bialey

    Should I go on?

  28. JTD...
    Careful. Calling someone a fraud means they are a criminal. You need to be careful what you say.

    Duesberg has not been found guilty of a crime...I think he is still under investigation.

    Rasnick has not been found guilty of a crime in the US... but he has been found guilty along with his chum Rath in South Africa and then there is that little issue about taxes.

    Bialey will never be found guilty, by reason of insanity (Just ask David Crowe about Harvey's mental health problems)

    And Henry Bauer, he has only committed crimes against nature. I mean sex with a Nessie... please I am about to blow chunks...

  29. i am amazad about recent comment calling these scientists criminals. but what about crime comitted by dr. gallo? submitting fraudulant papers? what about the crime of giving medication to people without symptoms based on tests that are questionable? so far as i know duesberg has not been found guilty of anything and dr. gallo himself said that duesberg is the greatest retro virologist in the world. now he is a criminal? i thought the law in your country requires a jury and judgement before you can state that.

    and the recent comment about henry bauer only confirms that ridicule appears to be main strategy of orthodoyx.

    so in summary: what i read on this post consists of:

    - slander, by claiming people guilty without a judgement
    - ridicule as in the case of henry bauer. what has nessie to do with his arguments regarding hiv? absolutely nothing. equally i could state that the previous commentators dress code is unfashionable and for that reason all of his arguments are to be invalidated.

    i am not convinced by any of this and increasingly favor the dissident perspective.

  30. Anonymous ("whereistheproof"),

    I'm perhaps as guilty of ridiculing the pseudo-scholarship of people like Henry Bauer as much as anyone else.

    People like Henry target their pretend-science not toward real scientists, but specifically toward the people who might be most vulnerable and susceptible to their nonsense, and who perhaps lack the scientific background to understand exactly why it is that what Henry et al are saying is codswallop, or to immediately recognise the rhetorical tricks they use to promote their dishonesty.

    This is grossly unethical behaviour on the part of Henry and his friends like Duesberg and Marco Ruggiero (who should know better). It is this unscrupulous and exploitative behaviour on their part that gets real biomedical scientists, physicians, social psychologists and even random net-hounds very cheesed-off indeed. It is not because Henry et al are wrong (real scientists get things wrong all the time), but because they are deceitful, and unprincipled in the ways they choose to propagate their deceit.

    Having said that, I have spent considerable effort addressing the substance of Henry's claims. Bauer simply ignores this, and lies to his constuency that his rubbish remains unrefuted. Most recently I've written about his argument about HIV/AIDS and race, explaining how his "analysis" is flawed. He will almost certainly choose to ignore this, like every other criticism of his "work" on HIV/AIDS. But it's there on the net if anyone is genuinely interested in trying to sort out whether Henry's HIV/AIDS views really are insightful and scholarly, or merely those of a deluded crank with no insight into his own medical ignorance.

  31. If you really want to read some libel and slander. Check out Celia Farber's hateful blitzkreig on Kim Bannon's father, family and friends at

    Then ask yourself why allowed such unsubstantiated hate speech when they boast about their Moderating Policy!

    Stop being a hypocrite. The AIDS Denialists are not Saints on a pedastal you are trying to portray them to be.

  32. no one is perfect. neither you, gallo or duesberg.

    but it is reasonable to weigh the evidence. and to speak of unethical behaviour after gallos research conduct as uncovered by ORI:

    from an ethical perspective the orthodoxy clearly is not winning this argument.

    you mention celias comments on bannons family. i am aware of them. can you please tell me where exactly celia farber has been making any misleading statements?

    deshong - you give clinical yet unqualified diagnosis for KS from your workplace over the internet. is that ethical? snout - you claim you you rebutted bauers claims. i am aware of your argument - but do not find them convincing.

    so - when dissidents do not agree with you that is what you do? ridicule them? insult them? your arguments simply hold no water - the your next step is to call names?

    totally uncool.

  33. If you have truly read Celia Farber's comments at and you still need me to tell you what comments she made that were "misleading" then your integrity and credibility as a decent human being are definitely in question!

    As for me, do not believe all that you read! I never "diangnosed" shit! That is Barnett being intentionally misleading. You are obviously quite gullible.

  34. Here is more proof that Celia Farber libels and slanders...and here she libels, slanders and is just outright rude and mean to OTHER DISSIDENTS:

    The woman, in my opinion, which I have over~documented at my site, is emotionally stunted, horrible and evil!

    Anyone who continues to support her is equally repugnant, in my extremely well documented opinion.

  35. phew - you had me worried there for a moment todd. thank god we have a different idea of evilness ;)

  36. Another family destroyed by AIDS denialism. The real consequences of the madness from Bauer and Duesberg :

  37. One thing I don't understand about the letter (and about aids denialism in general) is why it states that orthodox science has no explanation for HIV+ people living in good health for years without meds. I'm no expert of the subject, nor am I seropositive myself, but it has been more than 15 years since my biology teacher back in high school explained to us that long-term-no-progressors had been observed and taken into account by aids researchers. Also, as far as I know, when people test positive they are not put on drugs straight away, but rather under continuous scrutiny to test their Tcell numbers etc. I personally know of a few people that have been diagnosed more than a couple of years ago and are still off drugs. Of course they are well aware that they will have to start therapy eventually, but noone is forcing pills down their throats as long as their cd4 level is still good. The problem, as I see it, is that some people manage to convince themselves that they are still doing well even if their values are completly screwed-up. Speak of self delusion and power of the mind.

  38. Random poster to zombie threadsFebruary 20, 2012 at 2:47 AM

    "Positivenegative" posted the following on Questioning AIDS on February 13th 2012. He was responding to "JeremyB37" (Steve Stannard, a Perthian):

    "This is a compelling breakthrough for me in my thinking. However I must mention, Duesberg is the first person I knew anything about after my diagnosis. I contacted him and he set me on my way not to begin medications. David Crowe helped me too though it's taken me this long to wrap the RA/PG conversation around in my head."

    Numerous people diagnosed with HIV have posted on the net about being "helped" or "set on their way" into HIV/AIDS denialism by Duesberg, Crowe, and also by many of the other prominent denialists. Dozens have since died avoidable deaths as a result.

    It is about time Duesberg, Crowe and their friends are held to account for the deaths they have caused through their negligence.