AIDS denialism

I think people who deny the existence of HIV/AIDS must be fundamental Christians who support the abstinence form to control births and care nothing for African suffering.

Shame on you.

 

For anyone who believes HIV/AIDS is a myth, any amount of money spent on it is a waste. The act of choosing to believe that HIV/AIDS is a myth in spite of the overwhelming evidence against such a claim precludes any rational debate on the topic of funding for it. That's why denialist groups don't get engaged by others in a rational debate on the topic of funding.

For those who are interested in spending more money on diseases such as TB, claiming that HIV/AIDS is a myth is an irresponsible approach and is not the answer.

A group could just as well claim that TB is a myth because the cause of the disease hasn't been isolated to its stringent criteria and then contend that funds for TB should be transferred to other problems such as malnutrition.

.

 

I've read through most of it. It's an emotionally charged writing. I'd suggest reading some of the original papers cited in that writing.


Anthony Brink is part of TIG, the group opposed to TAC. Brink filed genocide charges against the head of TAC, Zackie Achmat.

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Aids_Focus/0,9294,2-7-659_2053803,00.html

Excerpt:

"Cape Town - A charge of genocide has been laid against Treatment Action Campaign head Zackie Achmat at the International Criminal Court, the Cape Argus reported on Thursday.

In the 59-page criminal complaint in the court in The Hague, Netherlands, Achmat is accused of promoting the provision and use of antiretroviral drugs to treat HIV.

Achmat would not comment on the matter and referred Sapa to the TAC. TAC general secretary Sipho Mthathi said: "We're ignoring it because we're dealing with more important tasks - that is to support the country's efforts to develop new strategic plans to save lives," said .

The charge was laid by Cape Town advocate Anthony Brink of the Treatment Information Group (TIG). The action is seen as the latest attack in the long-running battle between the TAC and its arch-rivals who vehemently oppose the use of ARVs.

Brink admitted that he received funding from a foundation set up by controversial Dr Matthias Rath, who favours vitamins for the treatment of Aids."

.

 

Check out the last paragraph in that news article concerning what Brink had to say about Zackie Achmat:

Brink has asked the court to impose the harshest sentence on him - "permanent confinement in a small, white steel-and-concrete cage, bright fluorescent light on all the time to keep an eye on him".

.

 

Background of Zackie Achmat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zackie_Achmat

.

 

TAC:

http://www.tac.org.za/community/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_Action_Campaign

.

 

I am not a christian, rather an agnostic. and I am just trying to maintain my opinion on the topic, have not chosen yet what to deny

 

shaggie,

thank you, I will go trhough the links you've posted. most likely it'll take me a while, since I am off due to my seasonal job.

be back soon

 

awerzfihpoűpőúdfsaícosvs
kts setwpúkú
zje6ző
6jeő67ej7z
j
7jenőnj7eőets
shbpw35i6pőoi3őp6oieúpd
o
setzútset

 

Someone decides who gets aids.

There is no such thing as a "side" effect... it is an effect, THE effect. If i take something, get sick and die... is it not clearly possible that whatever I took killed me - not the sneeze that caused me to begin the treatment?

I believe the medical system as a whole is a system of genocide... a war against whoever the system that directs what treatments doctors use decides.

 

On a lighter note, here's Gary Null or Mathias Rath or Kevin Trudeau (or somebody) peddling natural cures and explaining how he only lies to people so that they can see how truthful he is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeIa2A6BOaM

.

 

I came across a reference that cited a 1994 article in the Washington Post that stated a clinician once intentionally injected a syringe into an AIDS patient and then into himself.

Duesberg once said that he would allow Gallo (co-discoverer of HIV) to inject him with HIV but never did such an act. It makes one question whether Duesberg truly believes HIV is harmless. Some might refer to it as 'chickening out'.

Here's the source about Duesberg talking about innoculating himself with HIV.


EDITORIAL: The HIV-AIDS Debate Is Over: What to tell your patients when they ask if HIV causes AIDS

NEWSLINE, Volume 3, Issue 1 • February 1997
Stephen J. O'Brien, Ph.D. Director, Laboratory of Genomic Diversity
National Cancer Institute National Institutes of Health Frederick, MD

"With each passing year the evidence that HIV causes AIDS grew more persuasive and less refutable, even at the purely rhetorical level. But even as this evidence mounted, Duesberg and his minions grew increasingly shrill and hectoring (11-15). Their unsupported but high-decibel jeremiads garnered some media attention- in 1993, for instance, the London Times labeled the epidemic "a tragic myth"-and even respectable scientific journals felt obliged to address the issue again and again (8-10, 16-18), simply because Duesberg and his outspoken supporters raised the issue again and again.

In a singularly sensational and reckless response to this furor, a 65-year-old Florida clinician actually inserted a syringe into the finger of an AIDS patient and then injected himself with the same syringe-to emphasize his conviction that HIV infection does not cause AIDS (19). In the same vein, Duesberg himself once proposed to let Robert Gallo inoculate him with HIV. That Duesberg never went through with this publicity-generating ploy leads one to wonder if he has reservations about his own theory."

8. Weiss RA, Jaffe HA. Duesberg, HIV, and AIDS. Nature 1990 Jun 21;345(6277):659-60.

9. Cohen J. The Duesberg phenomenon. Science 1994 Dec 9;266(5191):1642-4.

10. Moore J. A Duesberg, adieu! Nature 1996; 380: 293-4.

11. Duesberg PH. HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Science 1988 Jul 29;241(4865):514, 517.

12. Duesberg PH. Does HIV cause AIDS? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1989;2(5):514-7.

13. Duesberg PH. Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: correlation but not causation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1989 Feb;86(3):755-64.

14. Duesberg PH. AIDS epidemiology: inconsistencies with human immunodeficiency virus and with infectious disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1991 Feb 15;88(4):1575-9.

15. Duesberg PH. AIDS acquired by drug consumption and other noncontagous risk factors. Pharmacol Ther 1992;55(3):201-77.

16. Dickson D. As UK prepares for Mullis encounter. Nature 1994 May 26;369(6478):265.

17. Anon. More conviction on HIV and AIDS. Nature 1995 Sep 7;377(6544):1.

18. Evans AS. Does HIV cause AIDS? An historical perspective. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1989;2(2):107-13.

19. Weiss R. And now for something completely different. The Washington Post, Washington, D.C., November 1, 1994: 7.

.

 

i haven't read it yet but a friend recommended the book "The Great AIDS Hoax"...
personally, i will nor will ever go on a drug cocktail. i personally think these "cocktails" are what causes "AIDS" to progress and weaken the immune system.

 

Maybe there is some kind of conspiracy going on amongst the AIDS denialists.

AIDS denialist David Rasnick is connected with Mathias Rath's vitamin business. In case you're not familiar, Rasnick is the right hand man of Duesberg. If you look at all of Duesberg's HIV/AIDS denialists writings, Rasnick is usually second on the list of authors. Rasnick also served as an AIDS denialist on President Mbeki's presidential advisory panel in South Africa and called for an outright ban on HIV testing. Denialist Anthony Brink also stated that he received funding from Rath.

Rath is quack who was run out of South Africa after killing people with his unauthorized clinical trials. He has a long sordid history of profiteering off of 'alternative' treatments for various diseases. He operates in various countries around the world.

So Duesberg, Rasnick, Brink, and Rath are affiliated with one another and connected in the vitamin business. All are claiming HIV is a myth in spite of 25 years of research showing HIV causes AIDS. And then there's Gary Null who's involved with the same type of vitamin business and also promoting HIV/AIDS denialism.

If it's not a conspiracy, the above clique of AIDS denialists, at the very least, has ulterior financial motives.

.

 

financial motives such as to start selling vitamins instead of AIDS meds?

 

HIV/AIDS is one of the most feared diseases of our times. As it has claimed millions of lives in the past few decades and continues to do so till date. Ignorance and unawareness are two major reasons for the growth of this dreaded disease.

Now, as if ignorance was not enough, some scrupulous people tend to add to the problem by way of spreading myths and rumors, about this issue. For quite some time, now, a number of myths and misconceptions have being doing the rounds.

 

Financial motives by some groups to boost vitamin profits by spreading misinformation about illnesses.

That's not to say that most supplement companies are sinister. Most are being honest and doing a great deal of good for people.


.

 

Here's an entry from thebody.com describing the plight of HIV/AIDS victim Jack Levine. It's a compassionate look at him in contrast to some of the ugliness he experienced from some of the denialists who become frustrated when a victim finally comes to the realization that HIV/AIDS is real and that the 'cures' claimed by denialists aren't the answer.


"The 23rd of March 2002 Jack Levine died of AIDS in hospital, 47 years old. I met Jack on the VirusMyth webboard first time about a year ago. In addition we exchanged about a dozen letters in 2001-2002.

When Jack started posting he immediately drew attention with sharp, entertaining, inspired and witty writings, revealing an educated man who was professionally involved with expressing himself in print. From vitriolic attacks - of which I had my share also! - over parodies on some of the most hilarious opinions. Or wondering why we all would spend our time on this aggressive board when we instead could listen to Mozart and read Gertrude Stein. A damned good question, actually.

Whatever the mood and subject it was always original and readworthy. I'd have liked to bring a number of quotes. Sorry that webmaster Mr. Robert Laarhoven once again decided to thrash all postings to the board shortly after Jack Levine shocked it by giving up his denial early 2002.

Jack constructively seeked alternative ways of tackling HIV/AIDS. This is always needed. Of course all now approved medications was once alternative. From a healthwise point of view Jack's problem was that his own research didn't seem to help despite doing what he could. He ate as healthy as possible, got lots of sleep. But still during 2001 he lost weight. On the board he posted that doctors urged him to start treatment as his results from disease progress tests continuously were going rapidly south.

Like so many other HIV/AIDS denialists Jack Levine ended up facing the reality of AIDS: physical symptoms. Or, in other words: He got sick.

In about a dozen letters to me he describes the thoughts and effect of his late treatment. Starting very intensive antiviral treatment is no joke already. In people already ill from their disease it can be more than rough.

It is common medical consensus that treatment for disease should be done well before damages become irreparable. Jack waited much too long and died more early than needed from typical AIDS-related diseases.

There are times where we all would need to deny. Where we can't face the facts and seek hope wherever we can despite cold facts staring us in the face.

But for a man with Jack Levine's intellect and education it was an uphill battle. Certain questions needed an answer and Jack just didn't get them from the denialists. Despite being in opposite camps I'd occasionally see Jack repeating unanswered questions from me on the board. "If drugs cause AIDS (as the denialists postulates) why are a long range of AIDS-defining diseases only found in HIV-positive people and not in HIV-negative drug users?"

Jack Levine's conversion from denial was not friendly looked upon among his earlier "friends" at the VirusMyth webboard. As Dave Brader put it they turned against him as a couple of dogs. But at least feelings were mutual. In his last mail, sent 3 weeks before he died he wrote:

"The Virus Myth webboard will not see my name on it for a long time, if ever. They repel me, these denialists. You don't know until you get ill."

Jack's premature demise was a result of the unlucky fact that he got infected and that he waited too long with treatment. While the first can happen for anybody the second was his own choice. Most of the people supporting Jack in delaying treatment are confused about what constitutes science, reseach, data and conclusions.

However damaging for others you can't blame people not having the insight. The people who make me real sad are the denialist 'scientists' who shamelessly through 20 years repeat their mantras, despite an enormous amount of contradicting data. Their name and formal title keeps a denial alive that otherwise would be dead and buried with all the people who went to their grave because of HIV. They definitely share a responsibility for the fact that Jack went before he had to.

Jack, I am sorry I never met you in person. I am sorry that I have received my last mail from you. But in our short encounter you were a formidable inspiration and had me laughing quite a couple of times. Looking forward to drinking a beer with you in another world where the subject that took so much of our time here will be purely academical earthly matters.

But if I know you and myself right I am quite sure that we'd find something else to debate. Until then... Rest in peace, mate!

Yours

Chr. Monsune

P.S. I thank Jack's family for getting back to me with the sad news and details"


.

 

On the darker side, some denialist groups are now claiming that Hepatitis C is a myth and telling people to not be tested for it.

.