AIDS dissident

From AIDS Wiki
(Redirected from Dissident)
Jump to: navigation, search

An AIDS dissident is an individual who denies the veracity of, challenges, or questions, in some way, the prevailing scientific consensus that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a necessary cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Dissidents also share the common claim that an HIV-positive diagnosis is not an automatic death sentence in the absence of antiretroviral therapies. Some dissidents prefer the term "dissenter", "skeptic", "rethinker", "reappraiser", or "insurgent", while the orthodoxy often uses the pejorative term "denialist" (James 2000, Kim 2006) (or "denier") (Nelson 2001). In response to the "denialist" label, many dissenters have begun to use the term "AIDS realist" (Lauritsen 2000).

Among dissidents, there are fundamental disagreements regarding the true nature of both HIV and AIDS. [1] Indeed, for this very reason, some who question the HIV/AIDS hypothesis are uncomfortable with the term "dissident" (or any particular term, for that matter), perceiving it as a label which does not do justice to the complexities of the issue. However, all are in agreement that HIV cannot be an underlying necessary cause of the ever-changing collection of diseases that are called "AIDS".

Since 1984, when the retrovirus HTLV-III was announced as the "probable cause of AIDS" at a US press conference, [2] dissenters have been continually accused of ignoring evidence in favor of HIV's role in AIDS, and of irresponsibly creating a threat to public health by their continued activities. [3] At the same time, dissenters have asserted that the current mainstream approach to AIDS, based on HIV causation, has resulted in inaccurate diagnoses, [4] psychological terror, toxic treatments, infringement of civil liberties, [5] and a squandering of public funds (Duesberg 1996a, Lauritsen 2004). The debate and controversy has provoked heated emotions and passions from both sides.

Origins of the term "dissident"

The term "dissident" has perhaps been the most widely used throughout the years. Its origins are not entirely clear. One of the first persons to use the term was Jad Adams. In a 1996 speech, he said,

"I have viewed the AIDS epidemic from the dissident perspective, indeed I might well have been the first to use the term 'AIDS dissident', so it does fall to me to give something of a definition. There are three fundamental arguments which characterise AIDS dissidents, though not all of them have necessarily been held by those who called themselves dissident. One is that the predicted spread of the AIDS epidemic has been vastly exaggerated; secondly that the drug AZT at best brings no benefit and at worst poisons those who take it; and thirdly, that the cause of AIDS has been misidentified as a virus now known as HIV, and that we should be looking elsewhere for the cause." (Adams 1996)



There are a number of misconceptions concerning the conclusions of AIDS dissenters. Nearly all of these misconceptions arise from attempts to reconcile the prevailing consensus for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis with dissenters' claims that it remains unproven.

"Dissidents reject all of modern biology/germ theory"

A common misconception is that dissenters reject the HIV/AIDS hypothesis due to a rejection of all of modern biology or the entire germ theory of disease. While it is true that many dissenters also question current hypotheses of diseases such as cancer (Duesberg 1987, Mercola 2001), and some even have serious doubts about the foundations of modern virology (Conlan 1998a), the fact is that the dissenters' doubts are based on sound biological principles known long before the AIDS era.

This particular misconception can even be turned around, and it can be argued that it is the HIV/AIDS hypothesis which flies in the face of everything known about retroviruses and infectious diseases (Bauer 2005-6, Caton 1995, Duesberg 1988).

"AIDS must be a government or military conspiracy"

A major misconception is that AIDS dissenters include those who view AIDS as a government or military conspiracy. [6] The truth is that dissidents are not conspiracy theorists. In the words of Serge Lang,

"The main problems with the HIV/AIDS controversy have not been due to a 'conspiracy'...Rather, these problems have included:
  • The inability by many people, and especially influential people, in the scientific establishment to tell the difference between a fact, an opinion, a hypothesis and a hole in the ground.
  • The refusal even to consider alternative hypotheses to the pathogenesis of HIV, notably drug use.
  • Censorship and tendentious reporting in the scientific press, as well as in the press at large." (Lang 1995)

Christine Maggiore also addressed the "conspiracy theory" claim:

"I don't think there is a concerted effort on the part of most people involved in AIDS to keep the facts from being aired. But I do think a few leaders are reluctant to admit, as most human beings are, that many mistakes have been made. Additionally, people working under and looking up to the AIDS leaders don't have much reason or incentive to question the status quo, and unfortunately, there is not widespread awareness of alternative AIDS information due to the media's preoccupation with a single point of view. Further, there are few fiscal rewards for resolving the problems associated with AIDS through means other than pharmaceutical drugs." (Maggiore 2005)

See also the FAQ: Are dissidents claiming that the HIV hypothesis is a conspiracy, or that a conspiracy exists to suppress the truth about HIV/AIDS? for more information.

"99.99% of scientists cannot be wrong and/or stupid"

Another misconception is that the HIV/AIDS hypothesis cannot be wrong, because this would require the vast majority of scientists to be wrong and/or stupid. In essence, this misconception is a version of the argument that "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong". [7]

One point to be made is that we don't really have any accurate idea of how many scientists actually harbour doubts over the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. In a scientific atmosphere in which those who openly doubt the viral hypothesis are regularly compared to Holocaust deniers, "flat earthers", and those suffering from mental illness, [8], and in which it is extremely difficult to obtain funding for non-viral hypotheses (Lang 1994), there is little incentive for those with doubts to voice them. Despite self-selective documents such as the Durban Declaration, no experiment has ever been performed to determine, for example, whether a signficant proportion of the readers of Nature or Science remain unconvinced of the validity of the viral hypothesis (Brown 2006).

The Perth Group points out that the vast majority of scientists who accept the viral hypothesis have done so on the basis of trust and good faith:

"Only a minority of the world's scientists work on HIV or AIDS. Of these, most are cloistered in specialist fields where of necessity particular matters of significance are accepted in good faith as fact...This is not a criticism since no one has time to check up on every facet of every disease that afflicts mankind. When it comes to the question 'What is the proof that HIV cause AIDS?', in reality there are only a relatively small number of scientists who would be regarded by all the other scientists in the field as competent to explain and defend the HIV theory. In fact, the numbers of such scientists may not be that greatly different from the number who argue there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS." (Perth 2006a)

The Russian novelist and philosopher Leo Tolstoy offers an explanation why so many experts have subscribed to a flawed theory:

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

Some history

Early dissent

For many people, doubt of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is associated with one individual, a German American biochemist, Peter Duesberg, a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. [9] However, there were those who questioned the HIV theory before Duesberg. These include researchers who worked at the NIH itself. Before 1984, many hypotheses were put forward to explain the new epidemic. Recreational and pharmaceutical drug abuse, multifactorial environmental models, infection with multiple STDs, behavioral models, and others were all originally posited by government researchers (Duesberg 1996a, Oppenheimer 1992).

After the announcement of HTLV-III at a US press conference as the "probable cause of AIDS", [10] one of the first people to question the role of HIV in AIDS in print was Casper Schmidt. In 1984, he wrote an article in the Journal of Psychohistory entitled "The Group-Fantasy Origins of AIDS" (Schmidt 1984). In this manuscript, Schmidt posits that AIDS is an example of epidemic hysteria in which groups of people are subconsciously acting out social conflicts, and he compares it to documented cases of epidemic hysteria in the past, which were mistakenly thought to be infectious.

John Lauritsen, a former survey researcher and freelance journalist, also began publishing articles as early as 1985 in the now defunct weekly, the New York Native, that were critical of the HIV theory and the direction of research predicated upon it (Lauritsen 1993). He also began to develop his own ideas about recreational drug use as a cause of AIDS (Lauritsen 1985, Lauritsen 1989). His articles attracted some attention in the gay community, but remained little known among the general public. In 1986, he co-published with Hank Wilson a short booklet reviewing the scientific literature on nitrite inhalants ("poppers") (Lauritsen 1986).

It wasn't until 1987 that Peter Duesberg published the first major scientific paper questioning HIV in the journal Cancer Research; its title was "Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality" (Duesberg 1987). [11] The primary focus of the paper was the virus-cancer research program, but near the end of the paper, Duesberg took on the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, by pointing out the low annual incidence of AIDS, the inconsistency of a long clinical "latency" period with the short period of virus replication, the low levels of active virus, the fact that retroviruses do not kill cells, and the lack of an animal model. The paper caused an immediate furor. It was published at just about the same time that the CDC had officially classified reactivity on ELISA and Western blot tests as synonymous with "HIV infection" (Richards 2007) and AZT was being promoted as a treatment. A major publication, Confronting AIDS, had been published in 1986, and this book set out an agenda for the public health sector in dealing with the new epidemic (Institute of Medicine 1986). Many accused Duesberg of jeopardising public health by raising questions. During the same year, Lauritsen interviewed Duesberg, and his interview was published in the New York Native (Lauritsen 1987). Duesberg then followed up with sequels in the journals Science and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Duesberg 1988, Duesberg 1989, Duesberg 1991).

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, a medical physicist based at the Royal Perth Hospital in Australia, and her group of researchers have published since 1988 that HIV has never been correctly isolated as a distinct exogenous entity (Papadopulos-Eleopulos 1988). They also argue that "HIV/AIDS" is not infectious by blood, blood products, or sexual intercourse, and that "phenomena inferred as 'HIV' are induced by changes in cellular redox brought about by the oxidative nature of substances and exposures common to all the AIDS risk groups and to the cells used in the 'culture' and 'isolation' of 'HIV'." (Papadopulos-Eleopulos 1999, Perth 2006b). In contrast, Duesberg concludes that HIV does exist, but as a harmless passenger virus, as opposed to the causative agent in AIDS (Duesberg 1996b, Duesberg 1997).

A short letter


In 1991, twelve scientists, researchers, and doctors under the name "The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis" (aka "the Group") submitted a short letter to various scientific journals. It read:

"It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group of diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken." (Group 1992)

All the journals refused to publish it. In 1995, the Group was finally able to get another letter accepted and published by the editor of Science:

"In 1991, we, the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, became dissatisfied with the state of the evidence that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) did, in fact, cause AIDS."
"Specifically, we have proposed that researchers independent of the HIV establishment should audit the Centers for Disease Control's records of AIDS cases, bearing in mind that the correlation of HIV with AIDS, upon which the case for HIV causation rests, is itself an artefact of the definition of AIDS. Since 1985, exactly the same diseases or conditions have been defined as 'AIDS' when antibodies are present, and as 'non-AIDS' when HIV and antibodies are absent. Independent professional groups such as the Society of Actuaries should be invited to nominate members for an independent commission to investigate the following question: How frequently do AIDS-defining diseases (or low T cell counts) occur in the absence of HIV? Until we have a definition of AIDS that is independent of HIV, the supposed correlation of HIV and AIDS is mere tautology."
"Other independent researchers should examine the validity of the so-called 'AIDS tests', especially when these tests are used in Africa and Southern Asia, to see if they reliably record the presence of antibodies, let alone live and replicating virus.
The bottom line is this: the skeptics are eager to see the results of independent scientific testing. Those who uphold the HIV 'party line' have so far refused. We object." (Group 1995)

Growing doubts

Collage of Sunday Times articles on AIDS between 1992 and 1994

In 1990, Lauritsen published Poison by Prescription: The AZT Story, a book that was highly critical of the studies demonstrating the efficacy and safety of AZT in the treatment of AIDS (Lauritsen 1990). In 1992, Duesberg published a 77-page paper in Pharmacology and Therapeutics promoting his own alternative causation theory of AIDS – the "drug-AIDS hypothesis" (Duesberg 1992). He claimed that the majority of AIDS cases in North America and Western Europe were the result of recreational and pharmaceutical drug abuse. His arguments mirrored many that had been put forward by Lauritsen and the Perth researchers earlier.

In 1993, Lauritsen published his manifesto, The AIDS War, a collection of his writings on AIDS from 1985 to 1992 (Lauritsen 1993). Robert Root-Bernstein, an associate professor of physiology at Michigan State University and former MacArthur prize recipient, professed his own doubts about the HIV theory in his 1993 book Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus (Root-Bernstein 1993). Between 1992 and 1994, Neville Hodgkinson and the Sunday Times published a series of articles on the dissidents, which attracted much media attention itself (Hodgkinson 1993). On 13 October 1994, a medical doctor, Robert Willner, held a press conference at a North Carolina hotel, during which he jabbed his finger with a bloody needle he had just stuck into an HIV positive hemophiliac (Cohen 1994, Willner 1994).

The same year, the journal Science undertook a 3-month investigation led by Jon Cohen, in which it interviewed more than 50 supporters and detractors, examined the AIDS literature, including Duesberg's publications, and carried out correspondence and discussion with Duesberg (Cohen 1994). It claimed to refute Duesberg point by point. This was the most significant acknowledgement to date by a major science journal of the existence of dissent on AIDS.

In 1995, 12 articles were published by dissenters in the journal Genetica (Genetica 1995). Three were written by Duesberg, two by the Perth group of researchers, and two by Root-Bernstein. They formed the basis of the book AIDS: Virus or Drug Induced, published the following year (Duesberg 1996c). In addition to the papers cited above, it included articles and papers by mathematician Mark Craddock, NIDA researcher Harry Haverkos, Lauritsen, Nobel prize winner Kary Mullis (the inventor of PCR), Yale math professor Serge Lang, public health professor Gordon Stewart, and journalist Celia Farber.

In 1996, Duesberg published his own manifesto in a new book, Inventing the AIDS Virus, in which he put forward his arguments and positions to the general reader (Duesberg 1996d), and Neville Hodgkinson wrote his own book detailing his journalistic efforts, entitled AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science (Hodgkinson 1996). An internet website was also launched during this time.

In 1997, Lauritsen and Ian Young co-published a collection of articles on the psychological aspects of AIDS, entitled The AIDS Cult (Lauritsen 1997). In this book, they posit a sociopsychological aspect of the epidemic based on hysteria, fear, and forced conformity. Schmidt's 1984 paper mentioned above is the first chapter. Other essays in the collection condemn the psychological aspects of AIDS education which equate sex and an HIV diagnosis with death.

Breaking the wall of silence

As dissenting scientists continued their questioning, patient/activist organisations began to develop. Health Education AIDS Liaison (HEAL) was founded in New York City in 1982, and it eventually became the most prominent dissident activist organization (HEAL 2006). Other groups have come into being since then, including Alive and Well (Alive and Well 2006). These groups have openly challenged the HIV theory.

Dissidents attracted their first real endorsement from a major political figure, Thabo Mbeki, president of South Africa (Bialy 2004). Mbeki has openly questioned the HIV theory, and in the summer of 2000, he convened a South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel to deliberate on issues pertaining to HIV and AIDS in South Africa (South Africa Presidential Panel 2001). He invited dissenting scientists such as Duesberg and biochemist David Rasnick to join the Panel. Mbeki has suffered considerable political fallout over these actions, although he was re-elected by a wide margin of victory, despite his dissenting views (BBC 2004a, South African General Election results 2004). Indeed, when presented with both viewpoints, a majority of South Africans conclude that antiretrovirals are not the most effective treatment for "HIV/AIDS" (SABC 2 2005).

In 2004, Harvey Bialy published Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS, a book about the life and work of his friend Peter Duesberg (Bialy 2004). In 2006, Celia Farber authored Serious Adverse Events, a history of the AIDS phenomenon from a dissenting perspective (Farber 2006a). In 2007, mathematician Rebecca Culshaw penned Science Sold Out, detailing her disillusionment after ten years of HIV research (Culshaw 2007), and chemistry professor Henry Bauer produced The Origin, Persistence, and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory after intense scrutiny of HIV antibody test demographics (Bauer 2007).

In early 2006, the Group founded a new website, and also by that time, a network of dozens of websites, blogs, and information resources among dissidents had developed. (See the list of dissident websites.)

HIV on trial

Celia Farber's March 2006 article in Harper's Magazine

In early 2004, investigative journalist Liam Scheff broke the story of the Incarnation Children's Center in New York City (Scheff 2004a). The story detailed how children – primarily black, Hispanic, and poor – were being force-fed toxic antiretroviral drugs through "NG-tubes" [nose tubes] and "G-tubes" [stomach tubes]. The story was picked up by the New York Post and the New York Press (Scheff 2004b), ultimately leading to a BBC documentary, "Guinea Pig Kids" (BBC 2004b).

In March 2006, Harper's Magazine published a 16-page article by Celia Farber entitled, "Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science" (PDF) PDFsmallicon.gif (Farber 2006b). This article initiated a series of events which has put HIV protagonists on the defensive ever since. The article was originally commissioned to cover Duesberg's cancer research specifically, but Farber and Harper's editor Roger Hodge decided to shift the emphasis of the story to Jonathan Fishbein and the HIVNET 012 Uganda trial of nevirapine. The article attracted an enormous amount of media exposure, including coverage of the article by the New York Times (Miller 2006) and by National Public Radio (Gladstone 2006).

In October 2006, Andre Chad Parenzee appealed his conviction in Australia of having unprotected sex with three women despite being told he was diagnosed "HIV positive" (YBYL 2006). Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Valendar Turner were witnesses for the defense. This appeal represents the first time that HIV protagonists have been forced to defend the HIV hypothesis in court (YBYL 2007a). [12] In January 2007, Anthony Brink and the Treatment Information Group served a 59-page draft Bill of Indictment at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, in which they applied for the prosecution of Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) leader Zackie Achmat on a charge of genocide for his direct role in the deaths of thousands of South Africans from ARV poisoning (Brink 2007, YBYL 2007b).


By dissidents

On the scientific evidence

  • "We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true... We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake. " — Kary Mullis, biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Mullis 1996)
  • "AIDS has been a disease of definition. If we said that it didn't exist and didn't pay for it with taxpayers' money, it would disappear in the background of normal mortality." — Charles Thomas, molecular biologist and former Harvard professor of biochemistry (Null 1994)
  • "When Duesberg's criticism is combined with the Royal Perth group's theory of cellular oxidative stress, and their criticism of immunoassay tests, a comprehensive view of the foul-up and the right road ahead emerges. It is this. AIDS diseases are not viral. They are caused by introduced toxins. The indicated therapy is to use reducing agents to halt the oxidisation of cells by these toxins and prevent further introduction of them." — Hiram Caton, medical ethicist (Caton 1995)
  • "Rather than being viral and infectious, AIDS could more likely be a toxic and nutritional disease, caused by multiple, chronic, and repeated exposures to immunological stressor agents, which can have a chemical, physical, biological, mental, or nutritional origin." — Roberto Giraldo, infectious disease specialist, and Etienne deHarven, emeritus professor of pathology at the University of Toronto (Giraldo & de Harven 2006)
  • "Science is about making observations and trying to fit them into a theoretical framework. Having the theoretical framework allows us to make predictions about phenomena that we can then test. HIV 'science' long ago set off on a different path... One gets a remarkable sense of being disassociated from the real world when entering the realm of AIDS research." — Mark Craddock, mathematician (Craddock 1996)

On the AIDS establishment

  • "A kind of collective insanity over HIV and AIDS has gripped leaders of the scientific and medical professions. They have stopped behaving as scientists, and instead are working as propagandists, trying desperately to keep alive a failed theory." — Neville Hodgkinson, British journalist (Hodgkinson 1994a)
  • "The HIV-causes-AIDS dogma represents the grandest and perhaps the most morally destructive fraud that has ever been perpetrated on the young men and women of the Western world." — Charles Thomas, molecular biologist and former Harvard professor of biochemistry (Hodgkinson 1994b)
  • "I feel that for scientists to remain silent in the face of all this doubt is tantamount to criminal negligence." — Charles Thomas, molecular biologist and former Harvard professor of biochemistry (Farber 1992)
  • "The AIDS thing – the hysteria, the stupidity, the institutional craziness – would all disappear if the fear disappeared. The whole thing is kept together by fear, intimidation, terrorism and brutality." — David Rasnick, biochemist and protease inhibitor designer (Conlan 1998b)

By HIV protagonists

On their understanding of HIV

  • "No one knows exactly how HIV causes the gradual depletion of T-cells seen in AIDS. It is a mystery of the most intense interest." — William Booth (Booth 1988)
  • "AIDS does not have the characteristics of an ordinary infectious disease. This view is incontrovertible. AIDS is caused by an extraordinary virus." — Jaap Goudsmit, medical microbiologist (Goudsmit 1992)
  • "We are still very confused about the mechanisms that lead to CD4 T-cell depletion, but at least now we are confused at a higher level of understanding." — Dr. Paul Johnson, Harvard Medical School (Balter 1997)
  • "We still do not know how, in vivo, the virus destroys CD4+ T cells.... Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the loss of CD4+ T cells, some of which seem to be diametrically opposed." — Joseph McCune, immunologist (McCune 2001)
  • "Despite considerable advances in HIV science in the past 20 years, the reason why HIV-1 infection is pathogenic is still debated... There is a general misconception that more is known about HIV-1 than about any other virus and that all of the important issues regarding HIV-1 biology and pathogenesis have been resolved. On the contrary, what we know represents only a thin veneer on the surface of what needs to be known." — Mario Stevenson, virologist (Stevenson 2003)
  • "Twenty-five years into the HIV epidemic, a complete understanding of what drives the decay of CD4 cells – the essential event of HIV disease – is still lacking.... The puzzle of HIV pathogenesis keeps getting more pieces added to it." — W. Keith Henry, Pablo Tebas, and H. Clifford Lane (Henry 2006)
  • "Failures are occurring right and left... They aren't dying of traditionally defined AIDS illnesses. I don't know what they're dying of...but they're just wasting and dying. While we are making good guesses, they are just guesses. We don't know what we are doing." — Dr. Michael Saag, AIDS researcher (Saag 1999)

Reaction to dissent

  • "It's the Virus, Stupid!" — button distributed by David Ho, AIDS researcher, at AIDS conferences in 1995 (Farber 2000)
  • "The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous, meeting the highest standards of science... But to tackle the disease, everyone must first understand that HIV is the enemy. Research, not myths, will lead to the development of more effective and cheaper treatments, and, it is hoped, a vaccine... It is unfortunate that a few vocal people continue to deny the evidence. This position will cost countless lives." — Durban Declaration (Durban 2000)
  • "Those who attempt to dispel the notion that HIV is the cause of AIDS are perpetrators of death... I think that people like Peter Duesberg belong in jail... I suggest to you that Peter Duesberg is probably the closest thing we have in this world to a scientific psychopath." — Mark Wainberg, Canadian AIDS researcher (Scovill 2004)
  • "We will not engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes... It is not our role to enlighten denialists as to their inability to understand the available information." — website (AIDStruth 2006)
  • "Analogous to holocaust denialism, AIDS denialism is an insult to the memory of those who have died of AIDS." — Robert Gallo, retrovirologist, "co-discoverer" of HIV (Gallo 2006)
  • "This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly." — John P. Moore, professor of microbiology and immunology, Weill Cornell Medical College (Geiger 2007)

See also

  • Current events
  • List of dissident websites
  • List of orthodox websites
  • List of FAQ – a list of Frequently Asked Questions related to AIDS and AIDS dissent.
  • List of books – a list of books related to AIDS and AIDS dissent.
  • Suggested reading/viewing – a list of suggested reading and viewing for newcomers. Although these articles can profitably be read in any order, they are intended to be read in the order given.
  • Essential documents – a list of the most damaging documents available in the scientific literature, which refute the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, rebut "evidence" of HIV causation, reveal the fraudulent nature of the HIV tests, and expose the sociological motivations and political maneuverings behind the HIV paradigm.

External links


  1.   Not all dissenters agree on the underlying causes of AIDS-defining diseases (Mullis 1996), and there is even disagreement over the ontological status of HIV (Papadopulos-Eleopulos 1999).
    Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler announces that "the probable cause of AIDS has been found."
  2.   This announcement was made on 23 April 1984, before the appropriate scientific papers (Gallo 1984, Popovic 1984, Sarngadharan 1984, Schupbach 1984) were published and able to be read and critiqued by the scientific community. In this way, the usual scientific process was subverted (Duesberg 1996d).
  3.   In the film The Other Side of AIDS, Canadian AIDS researcher Dr. Mark Wainberg states, "As far as I'm concerned, and I hope this view is adequately represented, those who attempt to dispel the notion that HIV is the cause of AIDS are perpetrators of death. And I would very much for one like to see the Constitution of the United States and similar countries have some means in place that we can charge people who are responsible for endangering public health with charges of endangerment and bring them up on trial. I think that people like Peter Duesberg belong in jail." (Scovill 2004)
  4.   The manufacturers of the ELISA and Western blot antibody tests, as well as the "viral load" test, clearly state that these tests cannot be used to diagnose HIV infection. (Giraldo & de Harven 2006, Irwin 2001)
  5.   In California, a woman is seeking damages against her husband for not disclosing that he had sex with men before their marriage, despite the fact that he was healthy and had not tested HIV positive at the time of their marriage. The woman's lawyer has argued that limiting liability to those who knew they were ill "would reward the intentionally or recklessly ignorant." (Egelko 2006)
  6.   This particular misconception has been promoted by Steven O'Brien, co-author of an infamous paper in Current Opinion in Immunology (O'Brien & Goedert 1996) which was originally offered to Peter Duesberg to sign for publication in Nature (Bialy 2004). O'Brien has stated, "Controversy and conspiracy theories sell better than sobersided factual analysis, especially in fringe publications, and Duesberg has provided those publications with more than his share of both." (O'Brien 1997)
  7.   In the case of medical science, however, fifty million Japanese [Frenchmen] have already been wrong: the SMON epidemic in Japan in the 1960s, which killed tens of thousands, was thought to be a viral epidemic, but was instead caused by prescriptions of the drug Clioquinol in heavy doses (Duesberg 1996d).
  8.   In email correspondence with Valendar Turner, virologist Robin Weiss states, "If I were a radio or television producer, I think I might seek to explore a programme on latter-day flat-earthers as a sociological phenomenon. What lies behind HIV and AIDS denial? Why do such people feel persecuted by scientific orthodoxy when in reality they are simply ignored? Why do quasi-fascist concepts keep slipping in, like the holy grail of 'purification'? Doesn't HIV denial resemble Holocaust denial?" (Turner 1999) In a similar vein, AIDS activist Martin Delaney expresses, "I have come to believe that HIV denialism, like Holocaust denialism, is a mental illness deeply rooted in problems accepting authority and an inability to admit error." (Delaney 2006) Robert Gallo has also stated, "Analogous to holocaust denialism, AIDS denialism is an insult to the memory of those who have died of AIDS." (Gallo 2006)
  9.   However, Duesberg is far from alone in doubting the HIV/AIDS hypothesis: see the list of dissidents.
  10.   See footnote 2.
  11.   Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos attempted to publish her paper "Reappraisal of Aids: Is the Oxidation Induced by the Risk Factors the Primary Cause?" in 1986, prior to Duesberg's 1987 Cancer Research paper, but the paper was rejected by several journals. It was published in 1988 by Medical Hypotheses (Papadopulos-Eleopulos 1988).
  12.   The appeal was denied. The ruling by Justice Sulan can be found in its entirety here. The judge's ruling was grounded in two foundations: (1) the ex cathedra assertions of mainstream AIDS researchers, and (2) the claim that Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Valendar Turner do not have relevant expertise or experience to render judgment on the HIV hypothesis or the ontological status of HIV. As to the first, Judge Sulan wrote, "I consider that Professor Gallo [who once claimed to have found "first human retrovirus"! was a frank, forthright witness. Professor Gallo has been recognised throughout the world for his work. He is a pre-eminent expert in the field of virus identification and treatment. I accept his evidence and his opinions." As to the second, Sulan made the absurd claim that "Dr Turner [an emergency physician who has researched and published on HIV/AIDS for 20 years!]’s knowledge of the subject matter is limited to reading. He has no formal qualifications to give expert opinions about the virus. He has no practical experience in the treatment of viral diseases. He has no practical experience in the disciplines of virology, immunology or epidemiology." This, despite the fact that "I find persuasive the line of reasoning adopted by the High Court in Adamcik that ultimately, the level of acceptance of a witness’ evidence should not be determinative of the question whether that witness is qualified to give expert evidence. This is so even where, as in Adamcik, the evidence is far-fetched or implausible." A commentary on the court transcripts and the ruling is available at The Gallo Philes: HIV on Trial. The Perth researchers have responded to the ruling at their website.

Further reading


The following books are excellent introductions to and overviews of the HIV debate. A comprehensive list of relevant books is also available, ordered by title, author, topic, and year of publication.


  1. Adams, Jad, 1989. AIDS: The HIV Myth (ISBN 0312028598).
  2. Adams, Jad, 1996. "Speech at Kingston University", 1996.
  3. website, 2006. "Answering AIDS Denialists".
  4. Alive and Well, 2006. "About Us", Alive and Well website.
  5. Balter, Michael, 1997. "How does HIV overcome the body's T cell bodyguards?" PubMed, Science, 21 November 1997; 278(5342): 1399-400.
  6. Bauer, Henry, 2005-6. "Demographic Characteristics of HIV", Part 1 PDFsmallicon.gif (errata PDFsmallicon.gif), Part 2 PDFsmallicon.gif, and Part 3 PDFsmallicon.gif, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 2005-6.
  7. Bauer, Henry, 2007. The Origin, Persistence, and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, MacFarland & Company, (ISBN 0786430486).
  8. Bialy, Harvey, 2004. Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, (ISBN 1556435312), Chapter 5.
  9. Ibid.
  10. Ibid, Chapter 5.
  11. BBC, 2004a. "ANC Celebrates Landslide Victory", 16 April 2004.
  12. BBC, 2004b. "Guinea Pig Kids", broadcast 30 November 2004.
  13. Booth, William, 1988. "A Rebel Without a Cause of AIDS", Science, 239(4847): 1485-1488.
  14. Brink, Anthony, 2007. Criminal Complaint of Genocide Against Abdurrazack 'Zackie' Achmat PDFsmallicon.gif
  15. Brown, Darin, 2006. "Testing 'The Moore Assertion'", originally published at on 21 June 2006.
  16. Caton, Hiram, 1995. "A Virus Invades the Mind", from The AIDS Mirage, (ISBN 0868403423).
  17. Ibid.
  18. Cohen, Jon, 1994. "[Duesberg Phenomenon]" PubMed", Science, 9 December 1994; 266(5191): 1642-1644.
  19. Ibid.
  20. Conlan, Mark Gabrish, 1998. "Interview with Stefan Lanka".
  21. Conlan, Mark Gabrish, 1998. "Interview with David Rasnick", Zenger's.
  22. Craddock, Mark, 1996. "HIV: Science by press conference", in AIDS: Virus of Drug Induced?, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 127-130.
  23. Culshaw, Rebecca, 2007. Science Sold Out, North Atlantic Books, (ISBN 1556436424).
  24. Delaney, Martin, 2006. Comment to the Daily Transom, New York Observer, 14 March 2006.
  25. Duesberg, Peter H., 1987. "Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality, Cancer Research, 1 March 1987, 47:1199-1220.
  26. Ibid.
  27. Duesberg, Peter H., 1988. "[is not the cause of AIDS]" PubMed", Science, 241: 514-516.
  28. Ibid.
  29. Duesberg, Peter H., 1989. "Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: Correlation but not causation", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 86: 755-764.
  30. Duesberg, Peter H., 1991. "AIDS epidemiology: inconsistencies with human immunodeficiency virus and with infectious disease, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 88: 1575-1579.
  31. Ibid.
  32. Duesberg, Peter H., 1992. "AIDS Acquired by Drug Consumption and Other Noncontagious Risk Factors", Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 55(3): 201-77.
  33. Duesberg, Peter H., 1996a. "How Much Longer Can We Afford the AIDS Virus Monopoly?", (VI: The HIV/AIDS hypothesis is costly, unproductive and harmful) in AIDS: Virus or Drug Induced, Genetica, 1996; 241-270.
  34. Ibid, (I: Fabricating the Case for Infectious AIDS).
  35. Duesberg, Peter H., 1996b. "Duesberg Defends Challenges to the Existence of HIV, Part I", Continuum 4 (2), 8-9.
  36. Duesberg, Peter H., (editor), 1996c. AIDS: Virus or Drug Induced, Kluwer Academic Publishers, (ISBN 0792339614).
  37. Duesberg, Peter H., 1996d. Inventing the AIDS Virus, Regnery, Washington, D.C. (ISBN 0895263998).
  38. Ibid, pp. 157-159.
  39. Ibid, Chapter 1: Losing the War on AIDS.
  40. Duesberg, Peter H., 1997. "Duesberg Defends Challenges to the Existence of HIV, Part II", Continuum 4 (5), 26.
  41. Durban Declaration, 2000. Nature 406, 15-16, 6 July 2000.
  42. Egelko, Bob, 2006. "Thorny legal issues in case of HIV in marriage", San Francisco Chronicle, 4 April 2006.
  43. Farber, Celia, 1992. "Fatal Distraction", Spin magazine, June 1992.
  44. Farber, Celia, 2000. "Science Fiction", Gear magazine, March 2000.
  45. Farber, Celia, 2006a. Serious Adverse Events, Melville House, (ISBN 1933633018).
  46. Farber, Celia, 2006b. "Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science" (PDF) PDFsmallicon.gif, Harper's, March 2006.
  47. Gallo, R. C., et al, 1984. "Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS." PubMed, Science, 4 May 1984; 224(4648): 500-503.
  48. Gallo, R. C. et al., 2006. "Correcting Gallo: Rethinking AIDS Responds to Harper’s ‘Out of Control’ Critics", Item #53, "HIV and Holocaust Denialism".
  49. Geiger, Michael, 2007. "The Moore Declaration of War", as expressed in an email from John P. Moore to Michael Geiger and posted at "You Bet Your Life" on 1 February 2007.
  50. Genetica, 1995. Volume 95.
  51. Giraldo, Roberto and Etienne de Harven, 2006. "HIV Tests Cannot Diagnose HIV Infection.
  52. Ibid, Section 2: Pharmaceutical companies acknowledge that HIV tests are not specific for HIV.
  53. Gladstone, Brooke, 2006. "Harper's Bizarre?", an interview with Roger Hodge, On the Media, National Public Radio, 5 May 2006.
  54. Goudsmit, J., 1992. "Alternative view on AIDS." Lancet 339: 1289–1290.
  55. Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, 1992. "Letter to the editor of various scientific journals", Rethinking AIDS, Volume 1, No. 1, June 1992, 2.
  56. Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, 1995. "[to the editor]" PubMed", Science, 17 February 1995; 267(5200): 945-6.
  57. Health Education AIDS Liaison, 2006. "Our past, present, and future", HEAL website.
  58. Henry WK, Tebas P, and Lane HC, 2006. "[Predicting, and Treating HIV-Associated CD4 Cell Loss: After 25 Years Still a Puzzle]" PubMed", JAMA, 27 September 2006; 296: 1523-1525.
  59. Hodgkinson, Neville, 1993. "AIDS: Why We Won't Be Silenced", The Sunday Times (London), 12 December 1993.
  60. Hodgkinson, Neville, 1994a. "Poppers and Propaganda", The Sunday Times (London), 1 May 1994.
  61. Hodgkinson, Neville, 1994b. "Conspiracy of Silence", The Sunday Times (London), 3 April 1994.
  62. Hodgkinson, Neville, 1996. AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science, Fourth Estate, (ISBN 1857023374).
  63. Institute of Medicine, 1986. Confronting AIDS, National Academies Press (ISBN 0309036992).
  64. Irwin, Matthew, 2001. "Questions on HIV Antibody Tests".
  65. Ibid.
  66. James, John S., 2000. "AIDS Denialists: How to Respond", The Body, 5 May 2000.
  67. Kim, Richard, 2006. "Harper's Publishes AIDS Denialist", Blog: The Nation, 2 March 2006.
  68. Klipfel, Sarah, 1998. "Does HIV Cause AIDS?: an interview with Kary Mullis", Valley Advocate, 14 July 1998.
  69. Lang, Serge, 1994. "To Fund or Not to Fund, That is the Question".
  70. Lang, Serge, 1995. Letter to the Council of the National Academy of Sciences, 25 April 1995.
  71. Lauritsen, John, 1985. "CDC's Tables Obscure AIDS-Drug Connection", Philadelphia Gay News, 14 February 1985.
  72. Lauritsen, John and Hank Wilson, 1986. Death Rush, Pagan Press, (ISBN 0943742056).
  73. Lauritsen, John, 1987. "Interview with Peter Duesberg", The New York Native, 6 July 1987.
  74. Lauritsen, John, 1989. "Poppers: The End of an Era", The New York Native, 13 March 1989.
  75. Lauritsen, John, 1990. Poison by Prescription, Asklepios Press, Provincetown, (ISBN 0943742064).
  76. Lauritsen, John, 1993. The AIDS War, Asklepios Press, Provincetown, (ISBN 0943742080).
  77. Ibid.
  78. Lauritsen, John, and Young, Ian, (editors), 1997. The AIDS Cult: Essays on the Gay Health Crisis, Asklepios Press, Provincetown, (ISBN 0943742102).
  79. Lauritsen, John, 2000. "AIDS Realism Versus the HIV Hypothesis", Gay Today, May 2000.
  80. Lauritsen, John, 2004. "AIDS: A Death Cult", Gay and Lesbian Humanist, Winter 2003-2004.
  81. Macilwain, Colin, 1994. "AAAS criticized over AIDS sceptics' meeting" PubMed, Nature, 1994 May 26; 369 (6478): 265.
  82. Maggiore, Christine, 2005. "Alive and Well FAQ: Is AIDS a Conspiracy Theory?".
  83. McCune, Joseph, 2001. "The dynamics of CD4+ T-cell depletion in HIV disease" PubMed, Nature, 2001 Apr 19; 410(6831): 974-9.
  84. Mercola, Joseph, 2001. "What If Everything We Thought We Knew About Cancer Was Wrong?, An Interview with Peter Duesberg".
  85. Miller, Lia, 2006. "An Article in Harper's Ignites a Controversy Over H.I.V.", The New York Times, 13 March 2006.
  86. Mullis, Kary, 1996. Foreword to Inventing the AIDS Virus, Regnery, Washington, D.C. (ISBN 0895263998).
  87. Ibid.
  88. Nelson, Jim, 2001. "The AIDS Deniers", GQ, September 2001.
  89. Null, Gary. "The Big Lie About AIDS", Penthouse magazine, April 1994.
  90. O'Brien, Stephen J., 1997. "The HIV/AIDS Debate is Over", The Body, February 1997.
  91. O'Brien, Stephen J. and Goedert, J. J., 1996. "HIV causes AIDS: Koch's postulates fulfilled" PubMed, Current Opinion in Immunology, 8 October 1996 (5):613-618.
  92. Oppenheimer, G. M., 1992. "Causes, cases, and cohorts: The role of epidemiology in the historical construction of AIDS.", from AIDS: The Making of a Chronic Disease, pp. 49-83, Fee, E. and Fox, D. M. (eds.) University of California Press, Berkeley. (ISBN 0520077784).
  93. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Eleni, 1988. "[of AIDS – Is the Oxidation Induced by the Risk Factors the Primary Cause?]" PubMed", Medical Hypotheses 25: 151-162.
  94. Ibid.
  95. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Eleni, et al, 1999. "The Last Debate", Reappraising AIDS, December 1999.
  96. Ibid.
  97. Perth Group, 2006a. "FAQ: How can 99.99% of the world's scientists be wrong?".
  98. Perth Group, 2006b. "What the Perth Group Has Argued".
  99. Popovic, M., et al, 1984. "Detection, isolation, and continuous production of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS." PubMed, Science, 4 May 1984; 224(4648): 497-500.
  100. Richards, Rodney, 2007. "The Birth of Antibodies Equal Infection".
  101. Root-Bernstein, Robert, 1993. Rethinking AIDS, Free Press, (ISBN 0029269059).
  102. Saag, Michael, 1999. Quoted in Esquire magazine, April 1999.
  103. SABC 2, 2005. "The Big Question", South African debate, broadcast 2005.
  104. Sarngadharan, M. G., et al, 1984. "Antibodies reactive with human T-lymphotropic retroviruses (HTLV-III) in the serum of patients with AIDS." PubMed Science, 4 May 1984; 224(4648): 506-508.
  105. Scheff, Liam, 2004a. "The House That AIDS Built".
  106. Scheff, Liam, 2004b. "Orphans on Trial", New York Press, 13 July 2004.
  107. Schmidt, Casper, 1984. "The Group-Fantasy Origins of AIDS" PubMed", Journal of Psychohistory, Summer 1984, 12(1) : 37-78.
  108. Schupbach, J., et al, 1984. "Serological analysis of a subgroup of human T-lymphotropic retroviruses (HTLV-III) associated with AIDS" PubMed Science, 4 May 1984; 224(4648): 503-505.
  109. Scovill, Robin, 2004. The Other Side of AIDS. (transcript)
  110. South African General Election results, 2004. Wikisource, 2004.
  111. South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel, 2001. South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel Report, March 2001.
  112. Stevenson, Mario, 2003. "HIV-1 Pathogenesis" PubMed Nature Medicine, HIV Special. July 2003. Vol.9, No. 7. 853-861.
  113. Strohman, Richard C., 1995. Foreword to Infectious AIDS, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley (ISBN 1556431953).
  114. Turner, Valendar, 1999. Email correspondence with Robin Weiss, February/August 1999.
  115. Willner, Robert, 1994. "The Beginning of the End (The Needle Stick)", Chapter 10 of Deadly Deception, Peltic Publishing, (ISBN 0964231611).
  116. "You Bet Your Life", 2006. "'Wrongful Sentence': HIV Finally on Trial for Real in Australia", 24 October 2006.
  117. "You Bet Your Life", 2007a. "Alice in Adelaide, or 'Who's on First?'", 15 February 2007.
  118. "You Bet Your Life", 2007b. "The Achmat Indictment, Part II: Genocidal Complicity by the Media", 21 February 2007.


This page uses content from the AIDS_reappraisal article on Wikipedia, captured on 18 Nov 2005. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with the AIDS Wiki, the text of Wikipedia is available under the GNU Free Documentation License.
This page uses content from the AIDS_reappraisal article on Wikipedia, captured on 20 Jan 2006. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with the AIDS Wiki, the text of Wikipedia is available under the GNU Free Documentation License.