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.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Goodbye to another reckless source of AIDS Denialism


After over 30 years of publication, Mothering Magazine is leaving the shelves. Mothering will continue as a web-only organization, but the magazine has printed its last issue.
Mothering has long catered to hippie mamas, featuring stories on attachment parenting, cosleeping, natural foods and creative play. The magazine, and more recently the message boards, have been a home base for parents with an alternative viewpoint for generations.
The magazine announced the change on Facebook today, surprising their thousands of readers, many of whom hold subscriptions to the print magazine.
The January/February and March/April issues of Mothering will still be published, but in web-only form. After that the magazine will cease publication altogether, though Mothering will continue its message boards and other online activities.

Mothering Magazine dropped a bomb on readers today with this Facebook post:
Thank you so much for your support of Mothering. We are announcing today that Mothering is becoming a web-only business. Printing Mothering Magazine is no longer financially sustainable. The Jan/Feb and Mar/Apr issues are our final issues, and are digital only. We apologize that we could not provide this information sooner, but it only became apparent to us very recently.
A longer explanation from Peggy O’Mara is available on their website. It seems like this was a sudden decision for them, and has left a lot of readers holding print subscriptions in the lurch. At the same time, it seems kind of inevitable. Mothering has always been a small, independent magazine. With magazine sales dropping and production costs rising, more and more indie mags are going under and become web-only entities.


  1. Can't say I'm mourning the loss. They should have died of shame years ago. Will there be any legally enforceable accountability for the homicidally negligent misinformation they published? Like here:

    For more background, see also here.

  2. really now? I'd think that even the most staunch supporter of current orthodox hiv theory can agree with dissidents on the topic of avoiding AZT at any cost. I'd wager that its directly responsible for a majority of deaths attributed to hiv in the 80's.

    You might not like Maggiore's other theories, but you must admit she was right on with the depiction on the cover above.

  3. Your censorship only proves what a fraud you are PUTZ. But then nothing new in that for the AIDSTRUTH (hahaha) gang hey.

  4. Tony
    You are making your rounds on my Blog.
    AZT in doses of the 1980s were hugely toxic. Such a bad time.

    Why not join us here a couple decades later? AZT is one of over 40 drugs used to treat HIV. And AZT in current dosing is tolerated well by many people with HIV.

    Maggiore killed her daughter with her sad sorry denialism. The picture on this post is shameful.

    The One Campaign has a movement to eliminate HIV transmission from Mothers to Children. You should check it out.

  5. Tony, "I'd wager" does not make a baseless scientific claim more credible. The ultimate source of this claim, as far as I can tell, was a book by Stephen Davis called Wrongful Death - The AIDS Trial. It's unutterable dross, but more importantly - it's a work of fiction.

    During the 1980s AZT was approved only for people already diagnosed with AIDS/ARC. Prior to the release of AZT in 1987, median survival with AIDS was 11 months. In the late 80s it was 17 months. This is inconsistent with your claim that AZT rather than AIDS was the cause of most of those deaths.

    AZT monotherapy improved survival, but not by much. AZT in combination with two or more other antiretrovirals (HAART, introduced in late 1995-early 1996) massively increased survival.

    The "cost" of Maggiore's denialism is well documented. The baby depicted on that cover was unnecessarily infected with HIV, and died of the AIDS defining pneumonia PCP at the age of three. Maggiore herself followed suit also dying of PCP a couple of years later.

  6. Such a bad time in the 80's, Oh pleeease Seth, it's you and your ilk who at the time heralded 1800mg of AZT as a wonder cure. It's toxic at any dose and not theraputic. It was shown to kill HIV in a test tube then approved for human use. Of course it killed HIV, it kills anything organic it comes in contact with. I suppose in 20 years you'll be saying, "Oh those 2010's such a sad time, but we've learnt and moved on."

    Yes AZT is tolerated at a lower dose, but only just, as they've figured out the sub-lethal dose amount, still took them 20 years to do it though and how many killed? some figures suggest 400,000 dead from AZT poisioning.

    You really are pathetic.

  7. OK guys, looks like we're going to have to stop with Chemo- and Radiotherapy for cancer. Cytotoxic treatments have no place in modern medicine, according to resident guru "Anonymous".
    Sorry about that jab, but it was low-hanging fruit. The real point, though, are your numbers.

    Please post a link to a study for these figures you're citing. 400,000 dead from AZT poisoning? I suspect your figures are ludicrously inflated. If you can produce one single credible study citing those sorts of numbers I'll stop posting here. If you can't, you should stop posting here. Sound reasonable?

  8. The idea that a random poison was picked and called an AIDS drug is patently ridiculous. There are countless studies documenting its effectiveness at inhibiting HIV replication, its affinity for reverse transcriptase over nuclear DNA polymerase, possible toxicity, and the method by which HIV evolves resistance. Many of these papers were published in the 1985-1987 period.

  9. That you can attempt to defend AZT in 2011 shows how patently stupid you are notEton and Luke.

    And I'd like Snout to explain why most people diagnosed as HIV positive aren't put on anti virals until several years after the diagnosis? How does that gel with the 11 month median? has the virus become less pathogenic? Can't expect much more from a nurse educator from Ballarat reading his favourate text though.

    And using Snouts logic, most of Africa should have dropped dead long ago, I mean what percentage have access to the life saving drugs?

    Still pointless arguing with zealots though.

  10. What are we ever going to do with these AIDS Deniers?
    At first, they were interesting, from a purely psychopathological point of view.
    Then they became entertaining.
    Then angering.
    Then sad.
    Now just tedious.

    Anonymous, you are an asshole.

    Snout, have fun.

  11. *sigh*

    Anonymous, "survival with AIDS" means how long people live after a diagnosis of AIDS, not how long they live after seroconverting for HIV.

    Without treatment, people live a median of about a decade with HIV before the onset of the first AIDS-defining opportunistic illness.

    In the 1980s "survival with AIDS" meant how long you lived after the onset your first AIDS-defining opportunistic illness. Before 1987 this was a median of about 11 months. From 1987 to 1989 it was about 17 months.

    High dose AZT was licensed for the treatment of AIDS (but not for the treatment of asymptomatic HIV infection) in 1987.

    Denialists point to the poor survival (about 17 months median) of people with AIDS during the late 1980s compared to today, and claim that the deaths must have been caused by AZT treatment. They ignore the fact that AIDS in the pre-AZT era had a median survival that was worse (about 11 months median).

  12. I heard that Karri Stockely is not doing well. Sounds like she is suffering the usual fate of people who listen to Rethinking AIDS. Her health is declining and her denialst 'friends' have abandoned her.

    My question is...if she snapped out of denial and sought treatment could she benefit from HIV meds or is it too late?

  13. It's never too late to start treatment, Josh. Her viral load would start to decline almost immediately, and if her medical professionals could keep OIs at bay during this time then it's possible she could recover. Unfortunately, I doubt it's going to happen.

    It's nothing new. We've seen this before, most of the denialist movement has already forgotten about her and news of her untimely and preventable death will be displayed as a sad little footnote on their websites. A few commentators will bicker amongst themselves as to whether she died of an unrelated illness or whether she caved in to the orthodoxy and was killed by AIDS meds. Everybody else will have moved on to the next "picture of health" and the whole thing will start again.

  14. According to this, Emery Taylor has just died:

    His picture is still on the front page of the Rethinking AIDS website:

  15. hey Seth, check your spam. As for Emery, it's funny how none of the "typical" denialists" have weighed in on this death.