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.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

A Decade Of Denial: 9/11 Truthers Alive and Well

The Facts Speak For Themselves
Jon Gold
September 11, 2011

Before I begin, I would like to say that theorizing about what happened on 9/11, when you’re not being given answers to your questions about that day by the people who SHOULD be able to do so, is PERFECTLY normal. As is suspecting that the reason these answers aren’t being given is “sinister” in nature. As Ray McGovern said, “for people to dismiss these questioners as “conspiratorial advocates”, or “conspiratorial theorists”… that’s completely out of line because the… The questions remain because the President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT.” When you think about everything the previous Administration did in 8 years, the idea that they might not be giving us the answers we seek because of something “sinister” is not crazy. In fact, it’s the most logical conclusion one can come to at this point. After years of obfuscation, spin, lies, and cover-ups regarding the 9/11 attacks, it is unavoidable to think that criminal complicity is the reason why.

That being said, we have not proven it beyond the shadow of doubt. We do not have documentation that shows they planned it. We do not have a signed confession from someone. We have pieces of the puzzle, and to most of us that have been doing this a long time, those pieces point to more than just Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and 19 hijackers. If we could somehow download all of our knowledge to every person on the planet, this fight would be over tomorrow. However, we can’t do that. I wish we could. I wish the media would DO THEIR JOB. But, they’re not. Therefore, we have to be smart with how we approach people. This is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty.

As I have often said, we don’t need to come up with a narrative (theory) because our facts speak for themselves. I am going to do my very best to prove my point. A lot of these facts are from mainstream news outlets. Yes, they do report the news, but they DO NOT put the pieces together, they DO NOT ask the tough questions over and over again until they get an answer, they DO NOT give these facts the attention they should, reminiscent of the attention that Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, The Swift Boat Veterans and the “Ground Zero Mosque” got, and they DO NOT portray us in any other light except as “Conspiracy Theorists.”

[See Posting for a discussion of 50 'Facts]
There are so many facts concerning the 9/11 attacks, that it is impossible to know them all. People like to laugh at, and mock our theories (that we all have) concerning the events of 9/11. However, they have a difficult time with the facts. I hope that I have proven my point.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I am convinced some elements within our Government, and others were complicit in the attacks of 9/11. As you can see above, the information that exists today clearly points in that direction. We have pieces to the puzzle, and we KNOW who refuses to give up the other pieces. However, as I said, this is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. Let’s have a real investigation, be it a domestic or international one, and do what can only be described as the right thing. Holding those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, whoever they may be, accountable. It is long overdue. Justice has never been more needed. The perverse usage of that day can no longer continue. It is time to take away the “9/11 Card,” and let those poor 2,973 souls finally rest in peace.


  1. Every one of the 9/11 "Truthers" (Conspiracy Idiots would be a more accurate term) "50 Facts" have been proven time and again to be complete bull!

    I hate George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as much as they do, but I do not believe they helped perpetrate this attack in the least.

    I have read many sources debunking the 9/11 conspiracy "facts" as well as seen several documentaries and TV programs. It just did not happen. But nothing will change their minds just as nothing will change the minds of the AIDS Denialists or the Anti-Vaccine idiots or any other person who believes in vast conspiracy theories. It's just their deranged, mental pathology.

  2. There is extreme crossover in Denialism. I never knew to how much an extent until I read Seth's book. Many AIDS Denialists are also Holocaust Denialists or 9-11 Denialists (Liam Scheff) or Climate Change/Birthers/etc (Clark Baker).

    The Denialist psychological disorder makes for commonalities that all these crazies share - they aren't bedfellows - they are the same people often!

  3. On the other hand, I believe in the holocaust, 9/11 was an act of terrorism, climate change is real and there was no 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll while Armstrong had a lovely prance on the Moon. And vaccination is generally a good thing for the classical childhood diseases and some others.

    Unfortunately I don't buy the HIV/AIDS guff, hows can I? not a single prediction, not one has come to pass, no cures, no vaccinations, no decimation of the planet just an endless line of researchers and advocates placing their snouts in the trough.

    The only consistent message put out over the entire fiasco has been the "Not fully understood" line in nearly every research paper produced to date whilst at the same time stating "we know more about this virus than any other on the planet". Which in itself is a sad reflection on virology.

    It seems to me that the masters of retro virology when failed at ascribing it to being a cancer causing agent, jumped on to this lucrative bandwagon. Since then they've also tried unsuccessfully to ascribe a series of ailments to them from leukemia to obesity no less. I find it odd that when the correlations to those diseases are examined the theorists are shut down quickly, however near identical figures were produced for HIV/AIDS and swallowed hook line and sinker.

    This really is just a public relations construct, not a viable infectious agent and built more on a belief system than science. Unfortunately it's easier to deconstruct the "science" than the belief system.

    Sad really, a lot of bright minds have been wasted chasing shadows. A lot of bright souls have been lost chasing false promises.

    And ultimately all for a lousy buck.

  4. Virus researchers lost in the HIV quagmire are now betting on "glowing cats" to salvage what remains of the supposed viral killer of all time that isn't and never was. And you think Kary Mullis is mad. HEE, HEE

  5. "Many AIDS Denialists are also Holocaust Denialists"

    can I get a list of crossover denialists? I need it for my termpaper on conspiracy theories. Thank you

  6. Anonymous

    I wont be able to do all the digging for your term paper..but you can start with...

    David Crowe
    David Rasnick
    Celia Farber
    Rebecca Culshaw

    Various anti-government and anti-industry conspiracies around AIDS, cancer, global warming, vaccines... They are pretty much anti-science, so I do not think they have crossed into history, like Holocaust Denial.. although they use the exact tactics of denial and illogical reasoning.
    Not sure you have read Denying AIDS, but I elaborate there.
    Others may come to mind and I can update you.

  7. Sick of This, I'm glad that you don't believe in all that other nonsense. Perhaps there is hope for you.

    As for your claims about HIV:

    First and foremost, the most dire predictions about the HIV pandemic have indeed come to pass. Look at the life expectancy tables for Southern African countries, and one immediately sees that something is terribly wrong. In some places, people are more likely to die in their 20s - 30s than in their middle ages. As pointed out before on this blog, the number of orphans by disease in South Africa has skyrocketed over the last ten years. And many of those orphans sicken and die from what you, I suppose, would call mysterious causes.

    As for how can we know so much about a virus, and not have a vaccine or a cure, knowledge of an disease is not the only necessary criterion in developing a cure, and it is nowhere near the primary criterion in developing a vaccine. This can be seen most clearly with smallpox. The vaccine was created before we even knew what a virus was. In fact, we got lucky with vaccine research, in that the most pressing diseases, smallpox, polio, and measles, were the low hanging fruit, so to speak.

    We didn't need to do anything to develop the smallpox vaccine, other than notice that another virus gave complete immunological protection to variola.

    To develop the Salk vaccine, all that was required was a method of culturing the 3 different strains of polio. Knowledge of DNA viruses or even of DNA was not even around yet, when Salk was already perfecting the vaccine.

    Developing the measles vaccine required a method of culturing measles, and attenuation. That basically involved using natural selection to get a disease that multiplies faster in vitro or in chicken embryos. Hopefully, some of those advantageous in vitro mutations are disadvantageous when confronted with the immune system in vivo. So provided there is antibody cross-reactivity between the wild strain and the attenuated strain, and provided the attenuated strain no longer causes disease, the vaccine is done. In measles, the antibody target, and presumably the MHC complex target of T Cells is highly conserved between strains, so an acquired response to one protects against the other. The attenuated strain is far less virulent as it activates the humeral immune system immediately, whereas wild type measles suppresses the T cell response during the latency and prodrome phase. But we do not need to know any details. We just need to know that the attenuated strain doesn't cause infection and provides immunity. Natural selection takes care of the messy details in getting the strain.

  8. Now HIV. There is no wild virus that we know of that protects against HIV infection. Cross one off the smallpox approach. A inactivated vaccine provide no immunity, even against the wild type strain it was derived from. Cross one off the Salk Polio approach. And attenuated vaccines have little to no cross-reactivity with wild HIV. In fact, antibodies to wild HIV provide little protection against similar strains or even the same strain. HIV's envelope protein constantly mutates and most antibodies have a very narrow spectrum of coverage. Now we are stymied. It has nothing to do with how much we know about HIV and everything to do about the virus itself. We got lucky with the others.

    As for what good is our knowledge of HIV? We have developed nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitors, non-nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitors, fusion inhibitors, protease inhibitors, and integrase inhibitors. That is five different methods of attack against the virus, and all except nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, were completely novel classes of drugs. All except nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitors were deliberately, artificially synthesized to attack specific viral functions, an unprecedented act in medicinal chemistry. All classes were developed within 10 years of viral discovery. Together we can target HIV five different ways and bring viral replication to a screeching halt. That is quite an impressive achievement, and the only reason you don't think so is because deniers like Duesberg convinced you that those drugs actually hasten the symptoms of AIDS. But the scientific data suggests otherwise.

    Bottom Line: Lack of a vaccine does not equal lack of a virus. Knowledge of a virus does not equal a vaccine for it. And finally, even so, nor has all the HIV research been wasted "chasing shadows". We haven't developed a cure or vaccine, but we developed novel methods to keep it at bay.

  9. I made a mistake. Polio is an RNA virus, and I implied it was a DNA virus. Just clarifying.

  10. As usual notElon, you've given a response, but not an answer.

  11. I'm not even sure what the comment means. But I posted a very long reply. Perhaps, you would care to elaborate what you hate about it.

  12. "As usual notElon, you've given a response, but not an answer."

    Was there an actual question somewhere in Sick of This' rant?

  13. Anonymous, notElon gave a perfect answer. The logic of lack of vaccine meaning lack of virus is absurd.

    I guess we shouldn't believe in cancer as well, right? There is no vaccine against pancreatic cancer - so maybe it is just a conspiracy as well.

    Pharmaceutical companies and Linear Accelerator manufacturers make hundreds of millions of dollars when treating cancers, and some of those cancers have no cure either - so I guess they don't exist.

    And don't forget the doctors. They make money when they treat sick people, so therefore sickness doesn't exist either. It is a creation of the physician! Damn Hippocrates!

    It is that faulty logic that Denialists use to get a foothold on a sane person. Soon enough, there is a reasonable chance, given associating with such whackos that you actually might start questioning 9-11, Armstrong, etc.

  14. Kralc Rekab, dude... just stick to the facts. To say that "many dissidents are also Holocaust deniers" is a completely irresponsible comment to make, and very much discredits anything else coming out of your mouth. How can you possibly qualify such a remark? I can just as easily say many people who believe in HIV are Holocaust deniers. Its such a useless comment. Go look up the term 'godwin', by the way, and realize that essentially, you are performing a godwin with such a remark.

  15. Yes, Tony you're quite right that it's unfair to compare HIV/AIDS denialists with holocaust denialists. They are not morally equivalent.

    Holocaust denialists in 2011 are merely ignorant, offensive and stupid. But unlike HIV/AIDS denialists they aren't still causing deaths.

    What both ideologies have in common is the use of the same rhetorical strategies to deny a well-evidenced historical or scientific fact - conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.

    That's why both groups are called "denialists".