What is this chatter in the AIDS dissidence world lately about banning the word “denialist”? When did this become the most compelling matter for us to confront at this time in our history? Of course the use of derogatory terms by others to define us should be challenged, and AIDS Dissidents have been challenging the label of “AIDS Denialist” since it was first coined. Hyperventilating publicly about our distaste for being labeled with that name, however, is not a good strategy. It is playing the game by their rules, not ours. It is reactive, rather than proactive. It is a defensive posture, not an offensive one.
Are we in retreat? Who blew the bugle? I think I missed the call.
What’s in a name?
Drawing comparisons to other derogatory names like Holocaust Denialists, is flawed. Those groups really don’t exist. Oh, there may be a couple of websites that would seem to indicate otherwise, but no one takes them seriously. OK, maybe a handful of truly loose screws take them seriously, but give me a break. Name a single Nobelist, or tenured professor, or even a rational and articulate and educated person who espouses their view?
Global warming is a much better comparison. In that field, one can find expert opinions to reasonably support two divergent points of views, as with AIDS. In both cases, the more established side resorts to dismissing those with opposing views as Denialists.
Global warming Denialism recently had its Waterloo, in the form of leaked emails exposing the corruption and lack of integrity in that established scientific industry. While the questions about the cause and effect, or even the existence of global warming are far from resolved, those who are questioning the previously unassailable Paradigm of Global Warming now have a firmer, more mainstream, if you will, position from which to pose their challenges.
There have been some similar breakthroughs for AIDS questioners and rethinkers. The publishing of Robert Gallo’s original edits of his research papers by Janine Roberts comes to mind. Unlike Global Warming though, backers of AIDS scientism have managed to hold onto their perch as controllers of information to the masses, especially the lamestream media.
Where is our agenda?
We AIDS Dissidents definitely have our work cut out for us:
- There is research to be done that needs funding.
- In the West, gay men especially need support to come together and challenge the assault on our community by the AIDS industry that has so successfully overwhelmed us in such short order.
- Those of us with health problems have our work cut out just trying to recover and stay alive long enough to do some good. That work is not easy in a community as diverse and divisive as the AIDS Dissident community.
- The mass poisoning of Africans with dangerous drugs funded by otherwise well-meaning celebrities, billionaires and governments needs to be exposed for the genocide it is.
Wield, don’t yield
So what if those who support the prevailing AIDS Paradigm call us Denialists? I’ve grown kind of fond of that name, myself. When I see that word used in a news report or comment, I can immediately position the author as having a particular worldview, which helps me consider their message in its proper context.
When neutral observers see the term AIDS Denialist used,
(please read the rest of this post on my blog here)
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Michael Perry
maineveny111
tdetuff
Lara Riscol
Fudo Myoö
Bellwether Vance
Salon.com
Comments
I spent a month in the hospital and slowly recovered, but was never really the same.
I'll now explain that when I moved 4 years ago to NYC I didn't seek out a clinic to continue my meds and doctors appointments, I want to say it was because I was busy enjoying the city and all it has to offer but really it was something deep inside me that was saying " ENUF ALREADY" I just wanted things to be like they use to be,to be like most other people again. Even now I sometimes have to will myself to get up and get my meds from the cabinet, such a simple thing as taking 3 pills a night seems like climbing Mt Everest.
The last time I had my bloodwork done my CD4 was up to 244 and my viral load became undetectable, do I feel back to normal,,,a big fat no!
Alas, the government gives me too much to worry about when it come to SSD, medicaid, medicare and the cuts to my only source of income,,,I won't die of AIDS, I'll be nickel and dimed to death by Uncle Sam. enuf whining for now, I will get back to read in depth your blogs,,interesting ideas you have,
My blogs have not evolved yet into topical questions of the day yet,, I just telling my story, heading to the present and the frustrating problems all men of a positive nature face everyday.
If you would ,,read my blogs as I will yours, you seem pretty fuent in blogese but I could use a sounding board Thanks for your time Rob
I'll read your blog AND send you a PM on OS. Watch for it.
When I wrote this, I was speaking primarily to a small, specific community that I am a part of, the AIDS dissidence community. I decided to share it with a broader audience because I don't think a lot of people even know we exist.
I thought everyone I've met here at OS knows that me and the AIDS drugs don't get along so well. Don't misunderstand... I'm glad they are there for people who can be helped by them. I just don't think most healthy people should be "routinely" prescribed a lifetime of toxic chemotherapy solely because of a positive result on a questionable polyreactive test.
I hope you do find time to read more at my blog. You can start with
I am embracing a name that others impose on me. I do not deny that AIDS exist. I question the authority of the research that underpins the theory that a new virus, the HI virus, is the sole cause of what is called AIDS.
I and others have come to the conclusion that the prevailing treatment for people who test positive on the polyreactive test developed and patented by Robert Gallo with a lifetime of toxic chemotherapy is uncalled for and needs to be re-examined.
The issue of AIDS dissidence is complex and varied. Many do indeed question whether there is a sexually infectious agent involved. Others accept the existence of HIV, but believe it is a harmless passenger virus, which we all carry in abundance.
If you want to know more, there are dozens of links on my blog.
By calling myself a denialist I am trying to force those who peddle the mainstream AIDS theory to focus on the questions being posed, rather than trying to distract a debate by name calling those of us who dare to question.
I remember lots of research pointing clearly to AIDS being sexually transmitted. AIDS transmission in high risk communities like wives of infected hemophiliacs, Gay men, and prostitutes slowed dramatically when those people started using condoms religiously.
The way to open closed minds in not to insist that the implausible could be true.
PS, you need to delete your spam
When a group of rational, reasonable and educated people are dismissed with a derogatory name simply for holding a minority view, it's time for others to scratch their heads.
As for the spam, it comes with OS, but I am also embracing it as my own. I'll choose my own battles, thank you very much.