• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

HIV deniers...

transferosome

Student
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
34
Has anyone come across the 'HIV Deniers' conspiracy theory? My brother introduced it to me when I visited him in New York.

h t t p : / / video.google . c o m / videoplay ? docid = 3983706668483511310 & q = aids+gary+null & hl=en

(I'm new, can't post links. Remove the spaces.)

Apparently a small but vocal (isn't it always the way?) group of scientists and scientifically minded bloggers are claiming that there is not a shred of evidence linking the 'harmless' retro-virus HIV to the AIDS syndrome. It's the drugs killing the AIDS sufferers.

I couldn't find any decent material making a case for the other side of the debate. Only a broken link to an old Skeptic Magazine article.

Medical biology isn't my strong suit, so I'd be interested in people's views. If it's true it's mind boggling. ;)

If not... Well... What are the motives of the conspiracy theorists? :rolleyes:
 
I didn't watch that video, but Gary Null is pretty infamous for his kooky medical beliefs. Back in the early 90's, he had a weekend show that was aired by the local NPR station here in Dallas. It was hard to listen to - I was going to complain to the station, but it was pulled off the air after some weeks.

Article on Quack Watch about Null:
Null is prone to see conspiracies behind many of the things he is concerned about. One of his targets has been the pharmaceutical industry, which, he says, "cannot afford to have an alternative therapy accepted." He promotes hundreds of ideas that are inaccurate, unscientific, and/or unproven. He calls fluoridation "deadly" and has spoken out against immunization, food irradiation, amalgam fillings, and many forms of proven medical treatment. His series on "The Politics of Cancer," which was published in Penthouse magazine in 1979 and 1980, promoted unproven methods that he said were being "suppressed" by the medical establishment. His lengthy series, "Medical Genocide," began appearing in Penthouse in 1985 with an article calling our medical care system a "prescription for disaster" and claiming that modern medicine has had virtually no effect on heart disease, cancer, and arthritis [1]. Other articles in the series promoted chiropractic and homeopathy, claimed that effective nutritional methods for treating AIDS were being suppressed, claimed that chelation therapy was safe and effective for treating heart disease, and endorsed several treatments for cancer that the American Cancer Society recommends against. His Web site contains a huge amount of misinformation and bad advice.
 
h t t p : / / video.google . c o m / videoplay ? docid = 3983706668483511310 & q = aids+gary+null & hl=en

(I'm new, can't post links. Remove the spaces.)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3983706668483511310&q=aids+gary+null&hl=en

or even better...
Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
 
Last edited:
I am a doctor. This CT is completely untrue and horrible.

TAM:)
 
Apparently a small but vocal (isn't it always the way?) group of scientists and scientifically minded bloggers are claiming that there is not a shred of evidence linking the 'harmless' retro-virus HIV to the AIDS syndrome. It's the drugs killing the AIDS sufferers.

Well I guess these types don't know what happens to those who DON'T get treated.
 
I've experienced this theory in my health and human rights class last term. It hasn't been scientifically proven to be true, so good riddance to that garbage.

PS: My professor for that class is a medical researcher and extreme left winger, and even he says that this is crap.
 
What's untrue and horrible about it?

I'm on your side, but looking for information, not validation.
It's untrue because it's untrue (this only looks circular if you don't know the facts) and it's horrible because belief that HIV doesn't cause AIDS can lead to earlier death caused by the virus and increased spread of the virus.

Here's the NIH fact sheet summarizing the evidence that HIV causes AIDS.
 
dont know, but it seems those who do these types of videos/books/writings probably do not know anyone who does have HIV or AIDS.

<urls>


and those who deny HIV are called HIV Denialists

Or Deniers.

ht tp : / / w w w . theaustralian. news. com. au / story / 0,20867,21171021-2702,00. html
ht tp : / / w w w . motherjones.com /news /feature /2000 /02/ foo. html
ht tp : / / w w w . abc. net. au/ news/ newsitems/ 200702/ s1841737. htm
ht tp : / / w w w. skepticwiki. org/ wiki/ index. php/ HIV-deniers

Thanks for the links! :D

Sorry about the spaces. Stooooopid board rules. The link about the foo fighters is weird...
 
Last edited:
It's untrue because it's untrue (this only looks circular if you don't know the facts) and it's horrible because belief that HIV doesn't cause AIDS can lead to earlier death caused by the virus and increased spread of the virus.

You're right, it IS circular. :)

I'm sure that people would die quickly and horribly without AZT or whatever the drug cocktail is these days. Otherwise there wouldn't be an epidemic in Africa where there isn't enough medicine. :rolleyes:

Here's <url> summarizing the evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

Cool! That's make a great starting point :D Thanks!

Can you think of examples of people dying from HIV (and not the drugs) after blood transfusions or heterosexual infection?

Anyway, I'm curious as to their motives. Homophobes? Pope supporters? :confused:
 
I have heard this one several times. An offshoot of it that a coworker of mine actually believes is that supposedly AIDS isn't ravaging Africa as we've been told but that anyone in Africa who gets sick in any way, from anything, is classified by the authorities as having AIDS and that when the drug companies who go there to donate meds actually test people for HIV, they can't find anything. :rolleyes:
 
Anyway, I'm curious as to their motives. Homophobes? Pope supporters? :confused:
By the way, you can post URLs without the http:// part, and it won't make a clickable link, but it will be easy to c&p into someone's browser. But I see you're about to be past that probationary period anyway.

What motivates conspiracy believers is an interesting question. My guess is that imagining they know something secret that the rest of the world doesn't know, gives them a feeling of importance and power which is otherwise lacking in their lives. Who wouldn't want to be in a small, select group with insider knowledge? The trouble is, this desire clouds their judgment of what they should be believing.

The whole trick to critical thinking is recognizing situations that can lead you to incorrect conclusions.
 
What motivates conspiracy believers is an interesting question. My guess is that imagining they know something secret that the rest of the world doesn't know, gives them a feeling of importance and power which is otherwise lacking in their lives. Who wouldn't want to be in a small, select group with insider knowledge? The trouble is, this desire clouds their judgment of what they should be believing.
Sounds like Alex Jones, Dylan Avery and the gang at LCF...
 
Can you think of examples of people dying from HIV (and not the drugs) after blood transfusions or heterosexual infection?
Why? Are you in some doubt as to how HIV is transmitted? Besides, what would "examples" - which are, by definition, anecdotal - prove?

HIV/AIDS has been, and is, studied extensively and its modes of transmission are quite well understood. The CDC, in particular, can provide a great deal of information on the subject. Anyway, as you'll find through your reading, HIV can be transmitted through heterosexual/vaginal sex (more easily male->female than female->male, for obvious reasons) and blood transfusions. Transfusion transmission is very rare today in the US given that all blood is tested for HIV antigens/antibodies and the window of nonreactivity/false negative - on average, of course - is extremely small. Even when I left the Red Cross (I worked in the department which handled notification/listing of blood donors with abnormal test results) in 1996 we were doing both antigen and antibody testing on every unit of donated blood, and it was believed that someone would have to donate blood within two weeks or less of infection to slip by, though this can obviously vary.

Anyway, I'm curious as to their motives. Homophobes? Pope supporters? :confused:
All we can do is speculate. My opinion is that some folks are trying to "debunk" the link between HIV and AIDS in an effort to remove the stigma attached to being found HIV positive. Whether it's because these people feel alienated from others, are just scared of what lies ahead, or whether they just want to have a bunch of unprotected sex while pretending (or convincing their partners) that there are no true consequences is anybody's guess.
 
Thanks for the heads-up CurtC.

I have found in the past that pseudoscience (which this seems to fit) usually has a motive behind it. Religious, as in the case of Intelligent Design or Cellular Cosmogeny, or money, as in the case of structure altered waters. Vaccination deniers seem to peddle vitamin suppliments, quote scripture and sell diet materials. Etc.

In fact, ideology or money are generally the motivating factors. Can they be applied here?

Either way, there are a lot of claims made in the film. PEople just telling me that 'it's wrong' doesn't really give me much to go on.

Are you all part of the conspiracy or what? ;) :P
 
you shoudl be able to get away with just dropping the http:// part so it doesnt autoformat it as a hyperlink, easier than filling it with spaces :)
 
A little off-topic (but in keeping with the spirit of this forum), one of my first experiences with CT'ers was when a friend of mine dated some guy who insisted AIDS was developed by the US government as a biological weapon. I explained to her that I considered this highly unlikely, given its almost total lack of military value -- it takes months or even years to kill the enemy (as opposed to other biological agents that kill very quickly), it can only be transmitted via direct exchange of blood (as opposed to far more effective methods such as through the air), it can be avoided relatively easily, it initially leaves your enemy fully functioning, angry, vengeful, and in "what have I got to lose" mode, and so on. To my friend's credit, she accepted my explanation as reasonable.

ETA: I can think of a very easy way to test the commitment of anyone who claims HIV is not associated with AIDS: Ask them if they'd be willing to be injected with HIV-infected blood.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the heads-up CurtC.

I have found in the past that pseudoscience (which this seems to fit) usually has a motive behind it. Religious, as in the case of Intelligent Design or Cellular Cosmogeny, or money, as in the case of structure altered waters. Vaccination deniers seem to peddle vitamin suppliments, quote scripture and sell diet materials. Etc.

In fact, ideology or money are generally the motivating factors. Can they be applied here?

I'll deal with common motives at the bottom of this post.

Either way, there are a lot of claims made in the film. PEople just telling me that 'it's wrong' doesn't really give me much to go on.

This is a tricky one - the medical explanation for this is (I imagine) quite tricky for a lay-person to understand. I myself am such a lay-person, and if any of the medici who grace this board are able to give a summary of the explanation I would be grateful, although I don't know how much of it I'd understand.

/me ponders to himself...should he have checked the links given by other members before making that request...?

But thats no reason not to trust the information given here. I understand for example (unless I'm very much mistaken) that AIDS is not a specific disease but the symptoms a person has when they have a severely damaged immune system. Given that we know what the HIV does - it destroys a type of T cell that is required for a properly functioning immune system - it isn't hard to make the link between the two.

HIV destroys necessary cells in the immune system ------> AIDS is the manifestation of a poorly (or barely) functioning immune system.

Please, if anybody can correct me on anything I've said, do so! Wouldn't want to spread incorrect information.

Another thing to look at (while more indirect) is the survival rate pre- and post-antiretroviral medication. In the 80s people infected with HIV were given essentially a death sentence. Now, with better treatment, lifespan has increased in HIV/AIDS sufferers, and more than that the quality of life has greatly improved.

I imagine that this conspriracy would be quite alluring to many young people, due to its endorsement by Dave Grohl. I don't know what his reasoning is, but I imagine there are a lot of people falling for this because of him.

In terms of motives and whatnot, here are a few of the most common:

  • Christian Fundamentalists often promote this conspiracy theory, stating that HIV and AIDS are not linked, and that AIDS is God's punishment on the sodomites and sinners. This one lost steam when infection rates rose outside of the homosexual and drug using population, but it still crops up from time to time.
  • Thabo Mbeki supported the AIDS denialist movement in RZA, though to what end I can't be sure. Perhaps it was part of his backlash at percieved racism in the interpretation of the high HIV infection rates in Africa and especially in RZA - Check the end of the first paragraph under the "Race and Conspiracy" subheading. Perhaps he was worried about the logistics of implementing a large scale treatment plan. We can only speculate. He was however overridden by his cabinet on these issues, so the issue has somewhat faded into the background again.
  • There are a group of people who believe the government is infecting people because...um...it's the government. Stock standard conspiracy theorists who if you got ten of them in a room together you'd get eleven different government motives, and they'd still all agree with eachother.

Those are the most common ones I can think of, though as with any conspiracy theory I'm sure there are more out there. Perhaps "The Jews" are behind it in someone's mind, and in another person's mind it's the aliens (under the control of the polar bears) infecting the human race. "Who knows," is really the only true answer I could give you if you asked me, "How many variants of this conspiracy theory are there?"

Are you all part of the conspiracy or what? ;) :P

Yep. Don't tell anybody though. :cool:
 

Back
Top Bottom