puddle
Silver Member
- Points
- 0
I've recently become interested in the issue of what is called AIDS 'denialism' . I think it should really become called AIDS 'disputism'. I realize raising this topic immediately invokes thoughts of insanity/quackery but I was reading an article about this stopic by a biologist whose work I follow and couldn't relegate the idea to the quack bin so easily as his ideas are often more right than wrong in other areas(never actually seen him be prove wrong about anything yet, though of course he might be).
So, from the cursory glance I've taken at this issue so far- there is a huge amount of science behind it all as you can imagine and as someone who isn't a cell biologist, immunologist etc it's overwhelming- it seems the views of the 'denialists' are somewhat disparate, although many of them appear to converge on the idea that HIV virus is a harmless passenger virus which doesn't turn into AIDS and that the test is unreliable:
They also contend that the people who are suffering from what is called AIDS are an-risk group who have had their immune system compromised for a host of other reasons ranging from environmental contaminants, prescription and illegal drug use and many other reasons. Some even posit that what is called AIDS is the mere rebranding of older illnesses.
One of the most prominant bunch of these critics is called 'the perth group' who as I understand it are a bunch of doctors and biomedics based here in Perth as the name suggests. They seem to differ from some of the other critics in that they argue that not even the HIV virus exists. They have a website here.
As I said I realize most people would just switch off, dismiss as conspiracy or even be horrified at the suggestion that what is called AIDS is actually a massive misconception- or worse, a willfully dishonest manipulation, but I'm not quick to dismiss it on the grounds that;
1. the people questioning the current thinking are serious, published researchers
2. the response to those do the questioning is often derision and smear rather than a careful addressing of the arguments they present
3. anybody who has been harmed by the medical establishment or reads a lot of medical related stuff will know full well that it is indeed an authoritarian structure and many of it's cherished theories are completely baseless and have led to massive harm- psychiatry, thalidimide, vioxx, saturated fat demonization and ideas about cholesterol are a few examples which spring to mind.
So, does anybody else know much about this issue? Is it all quack stuff or is there something to it? I haven't done nearly enough reading about this to pretend that I am informed nor would I let it make me adopt a more carefree attitude towards sex. I'm just interested is all.
So, from the cursory glance I've taken at this issue so far- there is a huge amount of science behind it all as you can imagine and as someone who isn't a cell biologist, immunologist etc it's overwhelming- it seems the views of the 'denialists' are somewhat disparate, although many of them appear to converge on the idea that HIV virus is a harmless passenger virus which doesn't turn into AIDS and that the test is unreliable:
They also contend that the people who are suffering from what is called AIDS are an-risk group who have had their immune system compromised for a host of other reasons ranging from environmental contaminants, prescription and illegal drug use and many other reasons. Some even posit that what is called AIDS is the mere rebranding of older illnesses.
One of the most prominant bunch of these critics is called 'the perth group' who as I understand it are a bunch of doctors and biomedics based here in Perth as the name suggests. They seem to differ from some of the other critics in that they argue that not even the HIV virus exists. They have a website here.
As I said I realize most people would just switch off, dismiss as conspiracy or even be horrified at the suggestion that what is called AIDS is actually a massive misconception- or worse, a willfully dishonest manipulation, but I'm not quick to dismiss it on the grounds that;
1. the people questioning the current thinking are serious, published researchers
2. the response to those do the questioning is often derision and smear rather than a careful addressing of the arguments they present
3. anybody who has been harmed by the medical establishment or reads a lot of medical related stuff will know full well that it is indeed an authoritarian structure and many of it's cherished theories are completely baseless and have led to massive harm- psychiatry, thalidimide, vioxx, saturated fat demonization and ideas about cholesterol are a few examples which spring to mind.
So, does anybody else know much about this issue? Is it all quack stuff or is there something to it? I haven't done nearly enough reading about this to pretend that I am informed nor would I let it make me adopt a more carefree attitude towards sex. I'm just interested is all.