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, December 25, 2009

AIDS Denialism 2009: A Year in Review

The first year of my Author’s Blog is winding down, and what a year it has been. The year started and ended with the recent death of AIDS Denialist Christine Maggiore. Despite her having tested HIV positive and dying from pneumonia and disseminated herpes - two AIDS defining conditions, Maggiore was proclaimed by denialists to have died from everything but AIDS – from coffee enemas gone wrong to the stress caused by TV show Law and Order SVU. Ultimately, AIDS denialists placed their own Christine Maggiore ‘autopsy’ report online. The report was delivered by none other than Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati, who concludes that Maggiore died of the same cause that he determined killed her daughter – antibiotic poisoning. Denialists never cease to amaze.

The spring saw the release of the AIDS denialist
crockumentary film ‘House of Numbers’. This breakthrough film was supposed to be the end of AIDS as we know it. While House of Numbers made its way into local film festivals, cancellations mounted as festival organizers caught on. The New York Times summed up House of Numbers best…

Couched as a “personal journey” through the history of H.I.V. and AIDS, “House of Numbers” is actually a weaselly support pamphlet for AIDS denialists. Trafficking in irresponsible inferences and unsupported conclusions, the filmmaker Brent Leung offers himself as suave docent through a globe-trotting pseudo-investigation that should raise the hackles of anyone with even a glancing knowledge of the basic rules of reasoning.

Assembled from interview fragments with doctors, scientists, journalists and others, the film cobbles together an insinuating argument against the existence of H.I.V. as a virus and AIDS as the resulting disease. Among the many inflammatory claims is that diagnosis is a pharmaceutical-industry ruse to sell complex drug therapies (which the film then presents as the real cause of the syndrome we identify as AIDS). Evidence to support this and other highly dangerous contentions is found not in verifiable statistics (house of numbers, my foot) but in the impassioned anecdotes of individuals who have outlived the expectations of an H.I.V.-positive diagnosis.

Rife with fuzzy logic (most people with AIDS live in poverty, therefore poverty causes AIDS) and a relentless fudging of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions, this willfully ignorant film portrays minor areas of scientific disagreement as “a research community in disarray” and diagnostic testing as a waste of time. A few months ago 18 angry doctors and scientists interviewed in the film issued a statement claiming that Mr. Leung “acted deceitfully and unethically” when recruiting them and that his film “perpetuates pseudoscience and myths.”

Mr. Leung said in a recent interview, “All we do is raise questions.” Perhaps his next film will question the existence of gravity.

The Rethinking AIDS Society stepped up its campaign against AIDS charities in 2009. Most remarkable was their launch of a
sticker assault on companies that sell Product (RED) to raise money for the Global Fund against HIV/AIDS. The stickers have been seen everywhere from the Rethinking AIDS website to, well, the Rethinking AIDS website.

This year saw the triumph of Good over Evil when Matthias Rath lost his law suite against British revealer of ‘Bad Science’ Ben Goldacre. It was a celebration for all when Goldacre released his previously unpublished Bad Science chapter on AIDS free online as well as in a new edition of Bad Science.

Celia Farber announced a
libel complaint against a New York AIDS charity in 2009. Although court papers seem to have been filed, it would appear that the complaint was a false start.

Shortly after, Farber announced her retirement from the ‘AIDS Dissidence’ movement. Since retiring Farber has started a new AIDS denialist website and has written a few online pieces. Who knows what mischief we’ll see from Farber in her second year of retirement.

This was also the year that AIDS Denialists descended on Oakland California for the Rethinking AIDS Conference. My personal favorite highlights were the convergences of paranoia that culminated in ‘legal strategy’ sessions. We also saw David Rasnick go nearly completely psychotic in announcing that he tells people ‘not to get tested for HIV, and if they do get tested and test positive to fergit about it. If they can’t fergit about it then they should just keep taking the test until it comes back negative’. It is this kind of advice that will probably land Rasnick in prison. At least there is always hope in a new year.

2009 was the year that multiple studies converged to show that South Africa’s AIDS Denialist policies led to more than 350,000 deaths and 35,000 babies senselessly infected with HIV.
Duesberg and Rasnick pushed back with a written response to one article published by Harvard researchers. The Duesberg response was rejected by a legitimate peer reviewed journal only to be accepted by the non-peer reviewed journal Medical Hypotheses. Ultimately, the paper was retracted even from Medical Hypotheses. The same journal, Medical Hypotheses, also retracted another AIDS denialist article by Marco Ruggiero. The Ruggiero retraction drew less attention than did Duesberg’s article but was no less important.

This year saw the start of undoing the harm of AIDS Denialism in South Africa. The new President Jacob Zuma appointed a credible Minister of Health, started cleaning house of the remnants of denialism, and set forth a new and well resourced policy to prevent and treat HIV infection. After nearly two decades of neglect, AIDS policy in South Africa appears to finally be on track.

Infighting among AIDS Deniers escalated in 2009. We saw more than the usual contest of crazies between the Perthians who claim HIV does not exist and the Duesbergians who say that HIV exists but is harmless. One example was when South African AIDS Denialist extraordinaire Anthony Brink exposed Rethinking AIDS President David Crowe as a ‘fraud’ and called into question the legitimacy of the Rethinking AIDS Society. This segment of Brink’s attack is my personal favorite…

“Mr. Crowe likes the feeling of being the king; it's almost as nice as the feeling one gets from being the president of a Rotary Club in a little town in the middle of nowhere that no one wants to go to.

Sorry, I should have said President, President with a capital P, because Mr Crowe always announces himself with a capital P.

He realizes that to deal with the underlying problems caused by his witchdoctor whose views about tokoloshes he promotes, even though deep inside he knows that they're lies, and the problems he causes us by the way he runs things in doing everything possible to prevent a proper ventilation of these lies, would mean the end of his reign as king with the crown he put on his own head, or asked a couple of his friends to put on his head. And he'd have to give up being the king, the king he likes being so much, either by abdicating in disgrace or being kicked out in disgrace with a hard boot up his arse for the tremendous harm he's caused our AIDS dissident movement, and remembered forever for the tremendous harm he's caused our AIDS dissident movement.”

There was a good amount of mainstream media coverage on AIDS Denialism in 2009 including articles in New Scientist Magazine, the
Vue Weekly, New Humanist Magazine, Times Higher Education, and UK 'sThe Independent. Newsweek magazine ran a feature article on the continued failed career of the once promising scientist Peter Duesberg. My all time favorite Duesberg appears in this article...‘The whole dissident idea attracts a lot of crazies. And then all of a sudden, without realizing it, you've become one of them."

2009 saw an excellent symposium on AIDS Denialism and Conspiracy Theories held at Harvard University and new research showing that AIDS conspiracy theories hinder HIV treatment.

We lost some AIDS Denialists this year. Good riddance to former South African President Mbeki’s Health Minister Manto. Unfortunately her legacy of inaction and stonewalling HIV prevention and treatment in South Africa is still being felt.

Far sadder was the loss of
Lambros Papantoniou who was convinced by AIDS denialists to stop his HIV treatment.

Jerry Colinard, a board member of San Diego HEAL, died on July 4, 2009, at the age of 55, of AIDS. His webpage recalls that “Jerry supported the HIV community and was honored by a San Diego agency, ‘Being Alive,’ for his commitment. However by 2001 he had rejected traditional Western drug centered HIV medicine. He referred to himself as an ‘AIDS dissident’ thereafter.”

Sandi Lenfestey, a member of HEAL San Diego, died on January 11, 2009. She was 47, and had two children. To understand the real cost of denialism, see her young son’s shattering message to his mother.

Boyd Graves died in 2009. He was an HIV-positive lawyer who promoted the false view that HIV was developed by the US National Cancer Institute as part of a military program to develop biological warfare agents for use against targeted communities. It would seem that Mr. Graves was also an early influence on Brent Leung, the maker of AIDS Denialist film House of Numbers.

No doubt that we are in for another year of antics from AIDS denialists. There is no telling what they will do next, but I am sure it will be interesting.


  1. Nice article, Seth! No doubt modesty has forbidden your mentioning the success of your own book 'Denying AIDS' (and of course this Blog) in exposing the craziness and, often, malevolence of the AIDS denialists. For both the book and the Blog, well done!

    I'd also mention a few other books that further help reveal the similarities between AIDS denialism and other, related forms of anti-science (you rightly noted Ben G's). From this year's (or just about) crop there's Paul Offit's 'Autism's Deadly Prophets', Michael Specter's 'Denialism' and David Aaronovitch's "Voodoo Histories". Taken together, these 5 books tell everyone everything necessary about the ludicrous mental processes that underlie the denialist mindset (I'll also throw in Popular Mechanics' expose of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts from a few years ago).

    Yes, 2009 was a disaster for the AIDS denialists, and no doubt that welcome trend will continue into 2010.

    Individually, most of the nutters will continue to be nutty, as they are obsessives with no alternative lives to live. Some more of the HIV+ denialists will die of AIDS (sadly, in one or two cases we know about, fairly soon).

    We can also expect to see one particularly obnoxious and noisy AIDS denialist become seriously impoverished (as well as humiliated) once those harmed by him complete the legal response to him that is so utterly appropriate. There could well be some other interesting legal surprises for various individual denialists in the coming year........

    The internal schism between the RA and the PG factions will surely continue, and my prediction is that the Perthies will win out, as all the momentum and energy is with them. A PG victory will help our side greatly, as the Perthies are even crazier on the science than the RA group are, and even easier to dismiss when talking to real world people. So, not that we have a vote, but "Go Perthies" (an election slogan would be "Vote Perthy, you know it makes no sense!").

    Leung's silly movie will sink without trace in the next few months, as it's exhausted all its media potential already without making the inroads into the mainstream world its wealthy (and shadily secretive) backers craved for. Ticket sales in the cinemas will be pathetic, as there are only so many screenings Farber, Geiger, Crowe et al. can go to before even they get bored. As to real people, one can imagine the dilemma: "House of Numbers or Avatar? Anyone got a coin? Oh screw it, let's just go and see a fantasy movie that relies completely on heavy editing and a carefully written script to get its message across - we'll go and watch HoN."

    Happy 2010, Seth, and keep up the good work. I look forward to reading your summary of the denialists' 2010 disasters in a years time.

  2. Excellent job,Seth!Happy 2010!(background)In January 2000, my very elderly father became ill and I "inherited" the job of tracking our investments via CNBC/Bloomberg TV(so I could take prompt remedial action as necessary);I had some free time around noon,put on the radio, and *Voila!*- the Gary Null Show! I have heard all manner of intellectual atrocity as I "saved the ranch",so to speak,and have reported on it (and other pseudo-science)on sceptical websites since early 2008.Here are some on my concerns for the future:both Null and Mike Adams(a/k/a the "Health Ranger", of NaturalNews) are trying to (1) attract a larger and younger audience by using media such as Twitter, FaceBook, You-Tube, internet "radio"/"TV",college-access TV stations,community-access TV;(2)branching out (opportunistically, of course) into *other* areas that cause people worry:(in the wake of the 2008-9 crises) economic/financial prognostication and advice *and* political activism(abysmally, of course)(3) Null is using the courts as a self-promotion publicity-engine, suing NY state and the FDA(over vaccines)- supposedly the "Quackbusters"(sic) are next....I work with international students,have a social science education, and am very cautious (use part of my name;comment only on "friendly" sites;use another's e-mail, etc.)Denice Walter

  3. Excellent post, Seth! You have summed up much of the crazy AIDS Denialists antics, as well as the lashing by the general media!
    Let's not forget that LiaR Scheff also got his come~uppance with the Vera Institute Report on his bogus "Guinea Pig Orphan" story!!
    Also, I would like to make a correction. Farber went out of her way to say that her Truthbarrier site is a "literary" site! Although there are a few posts perpetuating her AIDS Denialist Agenda.
    I hope you are not saying Farber was (once again) lying! That is above you, Seth. Fortunately, it is not above me, so I will say it: "Yep, Farber is lying. Again."

  4. Denice: There is an an ad hoc group of people, based around ACT-UP in New York, who have been fighting Gary Null's dumb ass PR efforts and even more absurd "legal" strategy. The man's a total loser. He is strategically dumb in his efforts to get favorable PR like this. None of his efforts have gotten him any coverage outside the AIDS denialist and quack worlds he inhabits. In other words, who cares if he sues his opponents? Nobody's listening. The chances of his lawsuits against NYC and FDA succeeding are a big FAT ZERO. And if he goes for "Quackbusters", he's going to be up against the barriers the libel laws create - remember, he runs a "for profit" business, so he's going to find it hard to make a credible case particularly as the science is so solidly against him. This kind of suit wastes his own money and time, so is not necessarily a bad thing (although the defendants do have to spend time and money in response, which in frivolous suits is always a shame).

    That's not to say that Null isn't dangerous - he is, in the way he tries to use the media to corrupt kids. What they don't realize is that Null is a BUSINESSMAN!!! He PROFITS from the quack crap he sells. There's a lot of this in AIDS denialism. Null's opposition to FDA licensed drugs is because they are his rivals, his competitors. They eat into his profits. Hypocrisy!!!!

    If you want to help fight Null, get in touch with ACT-UP New York. They are clued up on the best way to stop this dangerous fool. Seth could probably help you find how to contact the right people.

    I'm staying anonymous too. Who needs a frivolous lawsuit from this evil moron........

  5. @ Anonymous(11:50 AM): Thanks! I am well aware of ACT-UP's terrific (and successful) efforts and have also been involved concerning Pacifica/PBS/NPR stations(in a slightly different way).Moron Null:(Sorry,I couldn't resist):1.about lawsuits wasting "his own money and time",maybe not- he supposedly now has a charity (NIA) which supports his anti-vax activities,"documentaries", and his new internet "radio network"(PRN): he does fund-raising for the real radio station(WNYE) and slips in adverts for his "charities" into the mix.He's always asking for volunteers:to answer phones,do work, as drivers.2. It's not *just* the kids I worry about but people of all ages who call him for "advice":I once attended one of his bookstore "lectures" and was too sickened by this issue to challenge him about credentials.3.The amount of money he earns is staggering(data from and his own website/see his "stimulus package").4.For an example of an on-air "debate" and related material, google up ""(at his site, search: Gary Null). A physicist for the US Navy relates his own efforts. Denice Walter

  6. One avenue to deal with Null is the law that covers charities. If he's using his, even indirectly, to make money for his business, a half decent lawyer would take him down big time. Something to look into?

    Yeah, he's one of the worst types of denialist. Unlike the dumb ones who act from some misguided conviction or other, Null is in it only for the money and is smarter than the average denialist (it's all relative of course). He takes a ride on the others, let's them do the hard yards for him then rakes in the cash. We should coin a term for him and his kind. How about "quackshill" or "homeoprofiteer", something like that.

    Definitely agree more attention needs to be paid to this evil #### in 2010. Getting him off the airwaves in New York City would be a good start.

  7. If you guys could actually avoid the underhanded ad hominem approaches you so prefer, and take up the other side on their invitation to public debate, you might actually be taken seriously beyond this little circle of half-dozen or so true fundamentalist believers.

  8. There's nothing to debate! One might as well discuss publicly whether the shape of the flat earth was triangular or square. No respectable scientist or sane member of the public would ever do that, except as a joke/spoof. And AIDS denialism is way too lethal to be funny. So, no, there will never ever be a public debate with these people.

  9. Actually John, you will agree that there is plenty being debated in AIDS science. As you have said many times, we do not know everything about how HIV causes AIDS. But we do know that HIV does cause AIDS. And we know that HIV Treatments save lives.

    The notion of a debate about HIV causing AIDS had merit in 1984. Maybe even 1987. 1889?

    If Leslieallen would like to read about the AIDS debates with 'dissidents' she/he should go back and read Jon Cohen's series of articles in Science where Duesberg is given his due. Or go back and read about he debates that were held at the CDC and elsewhere. Or read about them both in Denying AIDS.

    The debate was legitimate back in the 80's and the question was undeniably settled.

    The sad reality is that Peter Duesberg has never been able to move on and continues to seek attention as an AIDS Denialist. The only unanswered question for me is..

    What contributions to cancer research may Duesberg have made if he were mentally healthy and did not listen to the conspiracy nut cases?

  10. Yes, Seth, of course I agree that, within the HIV scientific community, there are many debates that take place on an almost daily basis, which is normal and healthy for a vibrant and ever-evolving field. You'll recall that several of us discussed a couple of recent news stories about HIV-related gene therapy subjects only this morning, putting the publicly available information into some form of context. But of course the denialists' craved for "debate" is a very different thing, a destructive and pointless exercise that would merely boost their egos by providing some kind of evidence that their foolish views are actually credible enough to discuss.

    I'm not a cancer researcher, although I did publish a couple of papers on oncogenes in the very early stages of my career, before I switched to HIV research in the late 1980s. However, even from the periphery of the field, it was clear even then (mid 1980s) that Duesberg had already burned his bridges to the scientific community. It's generally believed that Duesberg's career went into terminal decline because he attacked Bob Gallo's (and others') work establishing HIV as the cause of AIDS. This isn't entirely true, as Duesberg's career was ALREADY in free-fall by then, the reason being his scientifically unfounded attacks on the work of leading cancer biologists and virologists (Temin, Weinberg, Baltimore, Varmus, Bishop, etc). It's particularly notable that those he attacked were people from his peer group, or younger, whose work had attracted media attention and/or been rewarded by prizes etc. You, as a psychologist, can interpret such behavior better than most people can. I believe someone used the phrase "malignant narcissism" in this context, the purpose being to make the point that Duesberg simply couldn't bear to see other scientists succeed in the areas of science he felt were "his to dominate". So he attacked their work, to try to drag them down. He failed, because the people he attacked were right about the science of cancer biology, just as Bob Gallo was right about HIV. And that failure cost him his career; it's perfectly OK to be critical of the work of other scientists, but not when you're wrong so egregiously on the science........

    So, my sense is that Duesberg would have never contributed anything worthwhile to cancer research even if HIV hadn't come along. He would still have wasted his energy attacking those he disagreed with, and would have become more or more marginalized and ignored as a result. He would not have become quite the pariah he did turn out to be, because his attacks within the cancer biology field would probably not have cost lives in the way his attacks over HIV/AIDS did. In other words, he would have just faded away, a failed career on the fringes of cancer research.

  11. There's only nothing to debate among those who have forgotten that science and knowing is never closed off or finished, most especially not when the answers have been as unsatisfactory as they have been with AIDS. Further, science has very often, in Rebecca Culshaw's words, "sold out." It certainly appears to have done exactly that in the case of AIDS. There is plenty to debate.

  12. Leslieallen

    You are absolutely right, there is plenty to debate about HIV/AIDS. Just not the questions answered back in the 1980s.

    Funny you should bring up Rebecca Culshaw. I have always found her book title Science Sold Out ironic. She sold her career short with only two publications after graduate school she ended up retiring at quite a young age. She made the mistake of listening to nut cases like Harvey Bialy and David Rasnick for career advise. Really too bad.

  13. Nutcases like Harvey Bialy and David Rasnick? You're joking right? Rasnick is an expert on protease inhibitors. Bialy is a molecular biologist. You're a psychologist? And don't bother trotting out the "consensus" crap--consensus means nothing when science itself has become corrupt.

  14. Leslieallen..

    You are either very new to this denialism or you are trolling.

    Harvey Bialy has serious mental health problems. His rants against homosexuals are famous on the Internet. I personally experienced his emotional instability. And when I asked David Crowe about it, he told me that Dr. Bialy has been 'like that' for a long time. I do not want to speak too poorly of the man, I believe he recently died of cancer.

    And Rasnick's expertise with protease comes from experiments he did on rats having nothing to do with HIV.

    Do you know that Rasnick believes that the CIA is working with Glaxo to propagate the myth that HIV causes AIDS?

    Did you know that Rasnick conducted unsanctioned and illegal 'clinical' research for Matthias Rath on vitamins to treat AIDS in South Africa?

    Just like a debate about whether HIV causes AIDS is senseless, so too is a discussion about whether Bialy and Rasnick are firing all cylinders.

    Like I recently told Bill, these details are all discussed in Denying AIDS.

    It does not take a PhD Clinical Psychologist to see these guys are raving lunatics.

  15. “It does not take a PhD Clinical Psychologist to see these guys are raving lunatics.” Um...I guess it’s a matter of perspective. When you’ve lost your HIV+ medication compliant friends and have left only the non-compliant ones, your perspective changes. Suddenly the “raving lunatics” make a whole lot of sense, and those guilty of the ad hominem attacks I mentioned when I joined this conversation appear to be wearing permanent blinders. And don’t bother trotting out Christine Maggiore at this point. I already know what you’re going to say, and it doesn’t matter, because it’s not true.

  16. Oh and regarding Maggiore if you are accepting the Al-Bayati spin on it, can you explain her disseminated herpes and other telltale signs of AIDS? Those aren't normal symptoms of renal failure. Have you considered why Al-Bayati ommitted those from his PR spin (if indeed an autopsy was performed). Do you even care so long as what you read supports your belief?

  17. David Rasnick's "expertise" on protease inhibitors is self proclaimed. The reality is very, very different...... Of course Leslieallen is a person who is very easily fooled so it's not surprising that Rasnick has pulled the wool over his/her eyes.

    Harvey Bialy an authority on anything sane? Yeah, right, and I'm the Queen of Sheba.....

    And yes, Christine Maggiore and he daughter did die of AIDS. Them's the facts, whatever Leslieallen prefers to believe.

  18. I wish leslieallen, whoever the real troll is, would be more specific regarding these "compliant vs. non~compliant" friends are/were. And be specific. How many of each? How long have/did you know these people? etc...
    I think even trollallen will admit a few holes in this story.

  19. Whereistheproof(Baker?)January 1, 2010 at 6:02 PM

    So that we can grief and remember all those that fell victim to this lie.

    To remember and honour those that heroically stepped forward to tell the world the truth.

    And to hold those accountable that continue to perpetuate this genocide.

    Lets be clear about what is at stake: millions of lives are at risk here.

    Hundreds of thousands have been told they will die if they do not take ARV's.

    Our governments have been corrupted by Pharma, pressing our representatives to push their drugs on us.

    We are being discriminated against, our children are taken into state custody if we disagree with ARV treatment options, we are sentenced and locked up and paraded like freaks in the media when it is suspected that we passed on a virus that yet has to be isolated and to be shown that it causes AIDS.

    We are called 'Holocaust Denialist'. and while our lives pass by those who started this lie make a living off this tragedy.

    Many of us believing what they were told now live in isolation. Our human rights are at stake.

    May 2010 be the year where all this changes. The year when Gallo and his henchmen are held accountable.

    The year when our doctors once again rediscover the meaning of the hipocratic oath. When governments once again realise that science can not be left to greed.

    I will continue to ask questions and more importantly I continue to demand the answers we all deserve.

    In this spirit and hopeful as ever that this great human tragedy will soon find an end, I wish you all a great 2010.

  20. And may 2010 likewise be the year that our NASA-corrupted government admits that men never landed on the moon, that our Jewish-corrupted government admits the holocaust was a fraud, that our Satan-corrupted government admits that evolution is a hoax, that our Climatology-corrupted government admits there is no such thing as global warming, ect, ect, ect... Am I forgetting anyone? I wouldn't want to leave anyone out of the loony-New Years wishes.

    Best wishes from your pharma-NASA-Jewish-Satan-Climatology Shill,


  21. @ Poodle Stomper: you left out Illuminati:May our Illuminati-corrupted government admit what the eye-on-the-pyramid-on-the-dollar-bill means how they killed Mozart, and why they allow GW Bush to attend meetings at the Bohemian Grove (Damn! I'm sick of *him*!)Best wishes from your Illuminata-shill.Denice Walter

  22. Denise,
    Why did you have to mention the eye-on-the-pyramid-on-the-dollar-bill. It keeps staring at me and it wont stop. And stop thinking I am paranoid, I know what you are thinking!

  23. Funny! But, I thought you jokers were into scientificfacts -- such as 106,000 people in the U.S. are killed each year from prescription drugs:

    This paper has been cited in the scientific literature 2419 times.

    This is on par with your favorite paper by one Dr. Bob Gallo in 1984, cited 2467 times;224/4648/500


  24. House of Numbers has certainly been the hit of 2009.

    According to their website, the producers, who spent over 1.5 million dollars on the production and associated promotional activities, have managed to secure no fewer that 38 - count them 38 - individual screenings in cinemas and festivals worldwide over the past ten months. That's nearly one a week!

    And some of these screenings managed to attract audiences of literally... dozens of patrons - some of whom were not the hard core AIDS denialists who've been following it round since day one!

    Lemme see... my estimate that the film has cost around $1500-$2500 per non-hardcore denialist whose bum they've managed to put on a cinema seat to watch this crap.

    But wait! HoN ha announced another screening!

    It's in Hilo, Hawaii (pop 40,759) at 2.30 on a Sunday afternoon in the local "arthouse" cinema The Palace. One Screening Only!

    They had asked the main local business the Mauna Loa Macadamia Corporation for sponsorship, but apparently the Mauna Loa people told them that HoN was too nutty for them.

  25. I'm just curious but didn't we all address this claim of Bill's before? Is he too stupid to remember or simply too willing to forget?

  26. "Whereistheproof" is not Baker. He, she or it spells "honor" as "honour", which is Brit-speak. Mind you, as the post has a lot of spelling mistakes, that's not definitive proof.

  27. Thanks Anonymous...
    The comment posted by whereistheproof was actually sent to me as an email. I regularly place those emails where they belong... as a comment on my blog. In some cases I reply, in this case it seemed senseless. I included the 'Baker?' because it sounded like his usual rant, although he usually identifies himself in emails he has sends me. Plus I have been getting a bit more hate mail from the UK and South Africa since my New Humanist article. You are probably correct.
    Thanks again...

  28. "whereistheproof" is a semi-regular poster on other Blogs, definitely someone UK based. Never anything original, just stuff regurgitated from RA web site, Baker's blog etc, etc. Another wannabee, an English version of "Bill" or "Michael", someone dependent on the writing of others for what he posts. Not worth another moment of your time or anyone else's.