USA/Africa Dialogue No. 204: AIDS Q & A IV

I agree completely when you say, "I am not particularly keen on reading on dissidents. Good science is not determined by a head count. For example, as I wrote
above, I am not particularly taken in by the NUMBERS of
non-medical-science professionals who believe in a particular
hypothesis or not."

A recent example of argument by number of believers was the petition in
2000 for signatories of the Durban Declaration that was circulated by
Simon Wain-Hobson of the Pasteur Institute in Paris. The purpose of
the Durban Declaration was to defuse the impact of Mbeki's AIDS Advisory
Panel.

The petition stated that: "The organizing committee of scientists and
front-line physicians has 181 members spread over 43 different
countries. The list of committee members follows the declaration.
Among them you will find David Baltimore, Sir Aaron Klug, President of the
Royal Society, Luc Montagnier, Rolf Zinkernagel and many more. The
object is to get as many names of scientists and doctors to sign on."

... "Many of you will say that HIV/AIDS is not your area. However over
the years you have heard enough of the arguments to understand the
association. Furthermore many of you know well infectious diseases and
understand Koch's postulates. If you have colleagues in the laboratory
or in the clinic who you feel would like to sign on please ask them.
The more the better. However, please note that in order to be
authoritative we feel it necessary to restrict the list to those with
major university qualifications. Hence please do not ask students."

You ask are there others besides Duesberg and his small group who
question the contagious/HIV hypothesis. I recommended the Alberta
Reappraising AIDS Society website http://aras.ab.ca/ to specifically
counter the oft repeated argument that Peter Duesberg is virtually the
only scientist to question mainstream AIDS dogma. The 1117 dissidents
listed are largely MDs and PhDs. Indeed, one third of Mbeki's AIDS
Advisory Panel is comprised of scientists and doctors from around the
world who independently question AIDS dogma. I will send in a separate
email the Interim Report of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel so
you can see who they are.

The scale and scope of AIDS make it qualitatively different from other
supposedly scientific and medical enterprises.
I have found the best way to understand AIDS is to recognize that it is
primarily a political and sociological phenomenon. Science and medicine
have very little to do with understanding AIDS. In time, you may come
to see this yourself.

Again, thanks for your latest reply, and the two or three documents
that you sent or referred to.

Actually, for my own use, and for easy reference by those who visit my
website, I have now put together a number of documents pro- and con-
this HIV/AIDS controversy.

See: http://www.nigerianmuse.com/projects/AIDSProject

The site actually included some of the latest documents that you sent
- and much more.

This is the re-start of my own little contribution in this important
matter.

I am neither pro- or anti HIV/AIDS. I don't like the description
"AIDS dissident" which the anti-AIDS-conventional-wisdom activsts seem
to have accepted, because it has a negative connotation; they should
look for a more positive description in the New Year ! For me, I am
just pro-life (not in the right-wing sense o!), and I want to learn A
LITTLE more of both sides point-of-view so that new insight may allow
one to cut through the "fog of war" that has since enveloped both

sides.

Should it be so difficult to easily state

- what is HIV ?
- what is AIDS ?
- what clinical tests have been used TO DATE to determine HIV, and
what have been the relative advantages/disadvantages?
- ditto for AIDS ?
- why HIV and AIDS may or may not be related ?
- how are the numbers of HIV/AIDS sufferers determined, projected (eg
by the different computer models) ?

We should be able to prepare a two or three pager outlining the
simplest yet major issues around this disease, and get it in the hands
of 1000, 1 million or 10 million influential people around the world -
and I mean that both sides should be asked to come up with this, and
let the world decide.

Let us make a distinction between arguments BETWEEN scientists, and
information that PUBLIC POLICY persons and ORDINARY CITIZENS might
need, and we may be able to sway people ONE WAY OR THE OTHER !

As I once implied, if we do NOTHING about HIV/AIDS, whether the
numbers are as high as they are claimed to be or not, eventually they
will become quite high.

There should be a new commitment for 2005.

I suggest that a debate of the arguments for and against the
contagious/HIV hypothesis of AIDS among the few of us via email is not
the best use of our time. Perhaps, instead, we can discuss how best to
bring this debate to a much larger audience. From considerable
experience, I can tell you that this will be a very difficult thing to
do. The mainstream does everything in its power to prevent such a
public discussion.

Given the numbers of believers, media/political support, and enormous
financial and institutional resources, coupled with the absolute
conviction that the contagious/HIV hypothesis is correct, one would
think AIDS Inc. would be eager to face its critics and publicly
demolish us in front of the people of the world. Given its claims about
AIDS, the mainstream is morally and ethically bond to produce the
evidence and arguments that address most if not all of the criticisms
of the dissidents. Thabo Mbeki provided AIDS Inc. the perfect public
venue to do just that. Instead, the chose to publish the Durban
Declaration. Dissident, by the way, is a fine and noble label. We
didn't ask for it; it was given to us. It is such a good label, in
fact, that the mainstream has stopped calling us dissidents and now
label us denialists.

Thanks for visiting my Webpage, and for being "impressed!" Although I
usually start out "even-handed," once I am convinced about an issue, I
never mind being "single-handed" or "single-minded" !

As to the labels "dissident" or "denialist", I will take the former
over the latter. So I will drop my earlier objection, since I do not
readily have a catchy "positive" alternative label to either one.

Finally, athough the discussion among a few of us so far has been very
useful, I agree with you when you wrote that:

QUOTE

I suggest that a debate of the arguments for and against the
contagious/HIV hypothesis of AIDS among the few of us via email is not
the best use of our time. Perhaps, instead, we can discuss how best to
bring this debate to a much larger audience. From considerable
experience, I can tell you that this will be a very difficult thing to
do. The mainstream does everything in its power to prevent such a
public discussion.

UNQUOTE

I have hinted at this in an earlier email, when I stated that it may
be possible to provide such a forum at Howard University, and may be
able to interest Africa Action in it.

If you had such a well-worked out public forum plan before that was,
for one or other reason, shelved, you may want to share it with us.
There are no assurances, but we must try, try and try again. One

never knows what effort will yield fruit.

Again, the idea is not controversy for controversy sake, but to reduce
the rhetoric on both sides and cut through the fog, so that lives of
people all over the world, particularly in Africa, can be saved
quickly. Sometimes, these controversies develop into personal
enmities even among people who have never met each other, leading to
people talking past each other. When enormous sums of money are also
involved - "Mammon" to us Christians - the devil then works the
details !