HIV deniers...

In some circles, there's definitely a lot of misinformation about HIV and AIDS. There are some people who are nonchalant about it, thinking that should they contract it, it's an 'easily' manageable illness, pointing to the fact that Magic Johnson is still alive.

While there have definitely been advances in HIV medicine, anybody who's contracted the virus will tell you that it's not a walk in the park. I have to wonder if some of the denial is wishful thinking on the part of people too lazy or unwilling to use protection?

On a similar note, I've had to give some cold, hard facts to friends who advocated the "She won't get pregnant if I pull out in time" theory. I don't know how that rumour got started, but it's disturbing how many people buy into it.
 
It seems relatively easy and straight forward to me...

HIV attacks human T-cells. Human T-cells are vital for maintaining immunity.

When the level of T-cells drops too low the immune system becomes deficient and you have Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Really it's all there in the name.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't researchers (under microscopes or whatever) captured actual recordings of HIV cells attacking T-cells?

On the Conspiracy Theory note... I recall a South African member of parliament or something said that AIDS was a plot created by Colonial Powers to control Africa.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't researchers (under microscopes or whatever) captured actual recordings of HIV cells attacking T-cells?

On the Conspiracy Theory note... I recall a South African member of parliament or something said that AIDS was a plot created by Colonial Powers to control Africa.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
There's actually a lot of rumours about the AIDS virus, and this SA politician probably went along those lines.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/aids.asp
 
transferosome said:
What's untrue and horrible about it?

I'm on your side, but looking for information, not validation.
Click to expand...

It is untrue, because HIV does result in AIDS if left untreated, and it is horrible, because it mocks (through its insane premise) the deaths of millions from this horrible disease.

Information...well what exactly would you like. The Dean of my medical school was an infectious disease specialist, who subspecialized in HIV research. So unless he was part of the cover-up, his research and subsequent teachings to me indicated that the retrovirus was responsible for the immune supression of the T Cells that resulted, in many, eventually, in the syndrome of Immune deficiency. The Diagnosis of AIDS is often seen as both a techincal one (based on a drop of T-Cells to below a certain count - I believe 2000, but not sure off top of my head) and a clinical one (signs of immune supression such as infections from normal, usually benign flora, lack of immune response to stimuli, etc...).

I have no proof for you (outside of medical texts, studies available via pub med, etc...), largely because to me it has never been seen as a potential contraversy. As part of my university teachings, it was accepted as truth by virtue of expert opinion and multiple studies of the illness and its effects.

TAM:)
 
gumboot said:
On the Conspiracy Theory note... I recall a South African member of parliament or something said that AIDS was a plot created by Colonial Powers to control Africa.
Click to expand...

Ah, nice. That could also be it. You weren't thinking of Mbeki were you?
 
gumboot said:
Could be... I'm recalling it from news articles a while ago so my memory is pretty hazy.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

How long ago...Mbeki is currently president of RZA and has been since 1999, and was the first Chairperson of the African Union. Pretty high profile politician, and as such makes his comments about AIDS even more potentially damaging.
 
Duesberg is full of fertilizer

AIDS: THE UNTOLD STORY

In 1994 Inside Story Publications released "Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS" written by Brian Ellison and Dr. Peter Duesberg. Dr. Duesberg insists that there is no AIDS epidemic, and that most of those who are assumed to have died from AIDS have actually succumbed to the complications of drug usage, sexual stimulants, and AZT. (16) An updated version of Dr. Duesberg's book was republished by Regnery Publishing Inc. in 1996 under the title "Inventing the AIDS Virus". Both books contended that:
[1] "in most individuals suffering from AIDS, no virus particles can be found anywhere in the body" (17)
[2] "retroviruses do not kill cells" (18)
[3] There are no scientific studies to document any relationship between HIV infection and immunodeficiency (19)
[4] Kimberly Bergalis was perfectly healthy before she was given AZT (20)
[5] HIV-infected hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients do not die from immunodeficiency but rather from their hemophilia and other diseases. (21)
A number of other questionable arguments were presented in a clever and convincing manner in Dr. Duesberg's book, and they swayed many people. After all, why would Dr. Duesberg, a world-famous retrovirologist, make such statements if they weren't true? Let me respond:
[1] Clinicians presently chart the course of HIV disease by measuring the numbers of viral particles present in peripheral blood.
[2] Because the HIV retrovirus routinely kills normal T cells in the laboratory, special resistant lines of T cells must be used to culture the retrovirus: This information was confirmed by telephone conversation with Dr. Donald Francis in August 1996, and with the chief of the CDC virology lab in Atlanta, Georgia, in February 1996.
[3] There have been a number of published studies documenting the relationship between HIV infection and terminal-stage immuno- suppression: (22,23)
[4] Kimberly Bergalis was severely immuno- compromised, contracted pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and had a CD4 count as low as 41 before she was started on AZT. This information was obtained from Kimberly's college medical records which were graciously provided to me by her father, George.
[5] Both Ellison and Dr. Duesberg ignore the fact that hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients who have died have virtually all manifested the classic, clinical picture of terminal- stage immunodeficiency. (24)
Click to expand...

There is some woo, but Dr. Monteith has studied Dr. Duesberg's claims.
 
Mobyseven said:
How long ago...Mbeki is currently president of RZA and has been since 1999, and was the first Chairperson of the African Union. Pretty high profile politician, and as such makes his comments about AIDS even more potentially damaging.
Click to expand...


I honestly for the life of me can't remember. I would say definitely within the last 4 years. Other than that...Sorry.

-Gumboot

ETA. I also remember it was definitely a high profile figure saying it - that's the reason I remembered it. I was quite shocked to see someone in government saying stuff I'd expect to hear from a rural witchdoctor.
 
transferosome said:
Can you think of examples of people dying from HIV (and not the drugs) after blood transfusions or heterosexual infection?
Click to expand...

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

is a decent place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AZT indicates that although AZT was synthesized in 1964, HIV was not identified until 1984 and AZT wasn't FDA approved until 1987.

Stellafane said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Willner !!!
 
Last edited:
geni said:
popular amoung certian sections of the alt med commmunity. It's is likely that people have died because of it.

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

There are worse aids myths though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_myths#Sexual_intercourse_with_a_virgin_will_cure_AIDS
Click to expand...

Ahhhhhhhh... Wikipedia. Is there nothing it can't do?

It is a bit frustrating though. The reappraisal page definitely needs a clean-up. There are broken links to references, links to inappropriate references, and sections like this:

Wikipedia said:
HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS because researchers are unable to explain precisely how HIV destroys the immune system

This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time. This article has been tagged since February 2007.
Click to expand...

If I showed that to HIV dissidents/denialists/deniers, I'd be laughed at! ;)

Still, there's a lot of good material here. A big 'thank you' to everyone who's taken time to post about this so far. :D

I guess it's just the long slog of research from here.
 
This guy has written a lot about this

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

btw, this is the biggest misuse of the word "denier" I´ve yet to see in this place.

Transferosome - why not say the word "conspiracy theorist" or whatever? why "denier"? Are you trying to ingratiate yourself with people here?
 
Liszt said:
This guy has written a lot about this

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

btw, this is the biggest misuse of the word "denier" I´ve yet to see in this place.

Transferosome - why not say the word "conspiracy theorist" or whatever? why "denier"? Are you trying to ingratiate yourself with people here?
Click to expand...

Ummmmmmmm. In the material I had found up until the point of posting, these particular conspiracy theorists were referred to as 'HIV Deniers'. As in, they deny that HIV causes AIDS.

'AIDS Conspiracy Theorists' would cover people who believe the other stuff about AIDS - like that it was a invented as a biological weapon, or that it was released by the US government to destroy Africa. That's not what I'm talking about.

Since posting, I've seen several other names for these people. Denier or Denialist seems to fit for now though.

How would I ingratiate myself by using the word 'denier'? I don't understand. Am I offending you somehow? If so it's unintentional and I apologise.

Thanks for the link though! :)
 
That was strange...I've always heard them referred to as "AIDS denialists" or similar...meh.

Have fun researching...if that's a word one can use to describe learning about HIV/AIDS...
 
Stellafane said:
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.
Click to expand...

I once met an NBA player who insisted that HIV/AIDS was developed by the CIA to wipe out black people. He was WAY too big to argue with.
 
For God sake is nothing sacred? 'AIDS Conspiracy Theorists’, indeed.

This is complete garbage spread for whatever reason these people see fit to spread complete garbage.

HIV, if left untreated, leads to Aids. No ifs, no buts, fact.

I have seen no end of misinformation about HIV spread around the net, from the down right absurd notion than you can catch HIV from an optician who may be in contact with somebody who was HIV positive when fitting contact lenses, which is then passed onto you when they fit your new lenses.To the insane believe that AIDs is spread through eating corn on cob.Sharing tooth brushes, sharing a shaving razor, some idiots even think that HIV can be transmitted by sweat residue left on toilet seats.It is complete garbage.

HIV is transmitted by one method. Blood to blood contact, i.e. blood transfusions, sharing needles or by prolonged sexual exposure resulting in blood to blood contact. It is a very difficult virus to transmit from one person to another.

Man, I get so annoyed that people spread BS about HIV and still try to make out it is some form of leprosy. Scare mongering idiots who have not got a clue what they are talking about.

Aids conspirators are stupid people. End of rant.
 
Last edited:
My brother contracted HIV very early in the epidemic and died before there were any good AIDS treatments available. He was only 17 when he got it. He died at 32, quite a long life given there was little that could be done at the time. To think that people are out there spreading this nonsense is incredilby infuriating.
 
Some people are resistant to HIV, or at least last a long time without feeling the effects, so that could be one reason this idea may have spread. It seems that many species are susceptible to similar viruses but have adapted to the point that it doesn't do them any real harm. And in Africa there appears to be a growing number of people with resistance to the virus as they are the ones that tend to reach adulthood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom