In most of Europe and indeed across the world, refuting the established facts of the Holocaust can land you in jail. Why then is denying AIDS not so harshly punished? I draw comparison with David Irving, the "historian" whose denial of the holocaust earned him a spell in an Austrian prison before he was recently let out on probation. Given the hard and fast established facts of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, why are the AIDS denialist not afforded such?
Across the world there seems to be a growing band of AIDS denial activists spinning their flawed logic to anyone who will listen and gullible enough to consume their words, often with shocking consequences.
Just as Irving and others have ignored documented facts to spin their flawed logic, so a handful of mercenary scientists have ignored the truth to side with the denialists.
One story that actually shocked me is that of Christine Maggiore the founder of Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives. Christine died in December last year after a long battle with HIV/AIDS. Even after she had passed away her followers did everything to refute the official findings of the coroner as to the actual cause of her death (disseminated herpes virus infection and bilateral pneumonia, with oral candidiasis as a contributing cause; all three are related to HIV infection) Although it should be noted that No official autopsy was (allowed to be?) performed.
Even more disturbing in the case of Christine Maggiore is the death of her 3 year old daughter in 2005 from untreated AIDS.
Where am I going with this? Well I guess this case highlights all the flawed "science" of the denialists and their self-serving diatribe. As sad as this case is, especially given the death of an innocent child who had no say in her treatment.
How can it be that science that is not founded in any of the established and accepted medical facts be used to such devastating effect? How can governments be seduced into accepting a "truth" that flies in the face of every other HIV/AIDS professional on the planet?
The truth is this: HIV & AIDS are a very real issue in the World and only by education will we finally be able to fight this pandemic on a level playing field.
In the eighties the UK government ran a national campaign entitled "Don't die of ignorance" It is just a shame that countless thousands are dying every year due to the ignorance of others!
HIV & AIDS are real - the ties that bind the two together are undeniable and those that deny the truth are not only ignorant but indefensible!
Further reading
Comparing denial of the accepted HIV/AIDS connection to denial of the Holocaust and advocating prison for dissent is absurd—the fact of the matter is that we have infinitely more questions regarding AIDS than we do answers. It isn’t the arguments of dissidents that are unfounded, but rather the silencing of dissent is that is unfounded. Data from two decades of HIV testing, collected and analyzed by Henry Bauer, show that what is being detected with HIV testing can’t be an infectious agent.
ReplyDeleteWhile Christine appears to have been immune-deficient, it isn’t at all a matter of fact she died after a long battle with AIDS. There are many things being overlooked here, not the least of which is that there are many, many things that can cause immune-deficiency. Nor is it a matter of fact that her daughter died of untreated HIV. Toxicologist Dr. Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati attributed EJ’s death to an allergic reaction to amoxicillin (not at all uncommon, btw), and her lymphocyte count when she was admitted to hospital, according to toxicologist Dr. Andrew Maniotis, was 10,800 cells per milliliter—not a reading compatible with immune depression. (Reported by Celia Farber in “A Daughter’s Death, A Mother’s Survival.”)
And finally, the assumption, even if we were to assume HIV causes AIDS, that Christine and Eliza-Jane would be alive today had they chosen current antiretroviral treatments is an enormous leap. We all wish for a cure, but the truth is that while some do well with antiretrovirals, they are limited at best, and toxic and ineffectual at worst. The evidence that the “cure” for AIDS may be worse than the disease, that treatments may actually accelerate immune depression, is compelling.
Connie thank you for your comment.
ReplyDeleteFirstly let me say that, I stand by my comment where I draw comparison to the denial of AIDS to that of Holocaust denial. Whilst outwardly, that may seem harsh to the casual observer, the very fact that the denialst movement has hampered the fight of HIV in the developing world is in itself compelling. You only have to look at the case of Matthias Rath and his involvement with Thabo Mbeki and Manto Tshabalala-Msimang in South Africa. His unauthorised and unlawful trials in SA lead to the deaths of some of those who participated and ultimately the deaths of many, many more HIV+ South Africans through the delay of an effective HIV treatment programme.
In the case of Ms Maggiore I see the facts as they are presented and those are that she was diagnosed as HIV+ in the early 1990's. Aside from the those within the denialist movement, I see no other evidence to refute that. Therefore I think it is true to say that she was immune-deficient. I also agree with your comment that there are other factors and illnesses that can cause immune deficiency but in this case I think one can safely assume that Christines condition was a direct result of her HIV infection.
With regards to her daughter, I find it difficult to accept the diagnosis of Amoxicillin toxicity as it is well documented that Christine hired a veterinary profession to review the autopsy report. I also cannot concur your comment with regards to Celia Faber as she too is a very prominent activist in the denialist movement so her judgement on the issue would, in my opinion, be swayed more towards the supposed facts that would supoport her own views on HIV & AIDS. I would also like to add that I did not state that if Ms Maggiore and her daughter had subscribed to HAART then they wioll be alive today. However, I do believe that it would have helped their condition and would have prolonged their lives.
Finally I would like to add that I do not consider myself an expert in this field and my own experience is that of being HIV+ myself and the fact that HAART has vastly improved my condition as well as that of many, many others.
My comments on this issue are my own personal perspective and as such I stand by them.
Again, I thank you for your comments and your thoughts on this issue. Debate is healthy on every issue, this one included. No matter what side of the fence you sit on.
Thank you for your civil tone (it’s rare among those defending the orthodoxy). I’m glad that you value dialogue, and most of all, happy to hear HAART has improved your health.
ReplyDeleteI do however still strongly disagree that the application of Holocaust denial is valid—it is not only harsh, but completely unfounded; here’s why.
Regarding the delay of HIV treatment to the developing world—you may not be familiar with the story, but reports of thousands of toxic reactions in trials being conducted were concealed from the White House just prior to the roll-out of the massive investment by the US government to bring nevirapine to Africa. AIDS drugs can help, but they’re limited, and there are better and far less expensive (and less profitable) solutions. Dr. Sacher, a German AIDS physician, has found her patients using alternative treatments to have far superior T-cell response than those on antiretroviral drugs. We need studies comparing those who choose antiretroviral drugs with those who choose alternative treatments. Sadly, those studies, even though those refusing treatment have volunteered to take part, aren’t happening, as far as I know.
As to the facts about Christine Maggiore—she tested positive once, but she also tested indeterminate and negative after that. And there are many, many non-AIDS conditions that can give positive readings (malnutrition, stress and drug-use being a few of the common ones, both prescription and recreational drug-use.)
And finally, I’m not a scientist, so my words don’t carry much weight, but there are many, many scientists who seriously dispute HIV/AIDS theory. It was built on a shaky foundation—the original papers in Science by Gallo and his group were, according to a governmental inquiry, “fraught with false and erroneous statements.” The report also stated that “the careless and unacceptable keeping of research records…reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to retrace the important steps taken.”
That’s the foundation HIV/AIDS theory is built on, and, in my mind, reason to go back to square one. HIV, while strongly correlated to AIDS, appears to be less a cause than simply a marker of compromised health—in which case to further compromise health with toxic drugs makes little sense to me.
I’m not suggesting anyone go off their meds based on my views, I’m only saying that the foundation of the house of AIDS is beginning to crumble. Nothing fits, and it’s worth keeping an open mind.
Thanks again for your further comments Connie.
ReplyDeleteI will comment further in a couple of days as I have a very busy schedule at the minute and your points raised with regards to Gallo do warrant further reading on my part. I will then address your points in an additional blog post.
Apologies if that seems somewhat dismissive at this point but that is not how I wish it to appear.
I look forward to taking the debate further with you very soon.
Regards,
Daren
http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/christine-maggiore-dies-but-not-of-hiv.htm
ReplyDeletehttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_275/ai_n16675808/?tag=untagged
http://justiceforej.com/MotherHood.html
I look forward to hearing your feedback on this as well. Some articles I found that were very interesting to read.