Denial Desperation

Guest Posting by Concerned Observant Citizen

The death of Emery Taylor has set off a disturbing action in the “dissident” (denialist) community.  They have taken this death as a Publicity Opportunity to “Circle the Wagons”.  Mr. Taylor’s death has become a call to arms to batten down the hatches and decide if you are a true “dissident” or a “denialist”.  This has started because Mr. Taylor’s death was a “classic AIDS Death” according to Gos, an AIDS dissident blogger, who is also afraid this fact “will prove to be a massive crisis of faith for many who currently call themselves ‘AIDS dissidents’”.  Gos goes on to conjecture that the truth of Mr. Taylor’s death “will make or break us.”



To me this is powerfully disturbing and hypocritical.  The denialists say that the “orthodox” is dancing on Mr. Taylor’s grave.  This may be true of a very few.  But I do not see anyone of the “orthodox” using the death of a human being as propaganda.  Of course the denialists have been known to stoop to such tactics in the past.  For example, Jonathan Barnett has gone so far as to place a Skull & Crossbones over the face of his close, personal friends after their deaths. As another example, Celia Farber and Clark Baker trotted out the Al-Bayatti version of Christine Maggiore’s Autopsy Report on the anniversary of her death.  Just as both of these examples have disgusted the majority and failed to further their agenda, so too will this latest attempt.  It is a definite show of desperation in a Cult that is already decreasing in numbers.

Here is how Gos defines dissident vs. denialist:

The difference between a dissident and a denialist is this: A dissident never stops questioning, and is not above constantly questioning his own beliefs. A denialist, on the other hand, holds dear to his heart a quasi-religious certitude that the facts are thus-and-such and that there's NO WAY he could ever possibly be wrong. A dissident seeks to come ever closer to the truth. A denialist is 100% convinced that he already knows the truth, and no one will ever get him to revise his opinion, much less change it.

Yet if we were to take a closer look at the rest of Gos’ words and those of others, they do not hold fast to this rule in every instance, if indeed ANY instance. 

This is especially clear when the denialists discuss HAART.  Most recently we have Karri Stokely who adamantly and viciously claims that HAART is deadly and has caused all her severe illnesses for the 11 years she was on HAART. Karri also steadfastly decries that her recent CMV colitis (a classic AIDS illness, BTW) is completely the result of“toxic HIV meds.”  Liam Scheff has written many times that HIV meds, those damned black box drugs, “destroy every single cell of the human body.”  Celia Farber has vociferously made these exact same claims for years in SPIN Magazine and infamously in Harpers.  Duesberg claims AZT is the cause of AIDS.  Let’s not forget that EVERY Denialist claims AZT is 100% deadly and is not useful in any way, shape or form.

The denialists are equally steadfast in their refusal to believe that Christine Maggiore’s death was due to AIDS nor that her daughter, Eliza Jane is dead because of her mothers steadfast refusal to allow even 1% possibility that she might, possibly, perhaps be wrong!  If they are so sure of this, then why did they not make Maggiore’s REAL Autopsy Report public?  Is it because they are holding "dear to their heart a quasi-religious certitude that the facts are thus-and-such and that there's NO WAY he could ever possibly be wrong” as Gos wrote?

These examples barely scratch the surface.  What this all boils down to is these people have no faith in science or the research of the past 30 years.  NONE!  They claim the tests are crap.  The virus has never been isolated.  There are no Electron Micrographs of HIV.  The medications do not work and are 100% toxic.  All they can muster is that the meds“may help in a very short term for some people.”  Is this questioning or holding steadfast?

I could go on and on with examples but the truth is these people will never believe the truth.  There is no discussion. There is not one iota of concession.  It is just lay, scared people trying to talk themselves out of facing the truth.  The problem is, in telling themselves lies others also get caught up and wind up as Emery Taylor.  Unfortunately the death of a friend or even a daughter will not allow them to ask themselves: "what if, perhaps, maybe, I am wrong?" 

 Note: The views of Concerned Observant Citizen are his or her own, and do not necessarily represent mine or this blog. Although they do!

Seth