“AIDS Denialism Is Back. We Can’t Let It Take Root.”

Uh oh, is this a call to arms?

The following opinion piece by Gregg Gonsalves, longtime ACT UP activist posing as an objective journalist, associate professor at Yale School of Public Health, and, importantly, co-founder of Treatment Action Group (who are absolutely Pharma pushers; there’s no way to sugarcoat that) appeared in The Nation on Friday, March 8, but I’m only just seeing it today. It’s a doozy. I’ll summarize the article and discuss its implications as I go through it.

AIDS Denialism Is Back. We Can’t Let It Take Root.

This article, like several that have come before it, is itself a reaction to Bret Weinstein’s now famous interview with Joe Rogan last month. The pull quote preceding the article attempts an ominous tone: “Joe Rogan, RFK Jr., and others are pushing long-discredited conspiracy junk about HIV and AIDS. Here’s how we should deal with them.” (Emphasis in original.)

Well, that got my attention. I wonder if Gonsalves is going to be bold enough to actually spell out “how to deal with us.” Let’s dive in.

The piece starts out with a cereal box-style “summary” of the criticisms of the HIV AIDS story, which does not state any criticisms that we made of the theory beyond the toxicities of the drugs, which, as we know, the HIV AIDS activists themselves not only deny but have attempted to suppress from the public. We’ll circle back to that.

It then moves into a review of what these people clearly consider the worst example of “HIV AIDS denialism in action” the world has ever seen, namely the consideration of the alternative by Thabo Mbeki, former President of South Africa, in the early 2000s. This turns out to be relevant later on, so hold on to that thought. I have to quote this one in full:

Conspiracies can kill. When South African President Thabo Mbeki, decided that these “alternative facts” were indeed true after too many late-night sessions surfing the Internet on Netscape in the late 1990s, he brought his country’s medical response to HIV/AIDS to a screeching halt. A Harvard study suggested that thanks to President Mbeki’s policies “more than 330,000 people died prematurely from HIV/AIDS between 2000 and 2005…and at least 35,000 babies were born with HIV infections that could have been prevented.” A group of us back then—people living with HIV, activists, and scientists—gathered to combat this nonsense under the banner of a website called AIDSTruth. After Mbeki lost the reins of power in 2008, South Africa’s policies shifted and the country now has the largest antiretroviral therapy program in the world. In 2015, AIDSTruth decided to mothball the website, as AIDS denialism was now history.

Oh boy. I know the Harvard study he’s referring to, and it’s a great example of circular logic in action, because it assumes its own conclusion, which is that the drugs are highly specific to “HIV.” As we know, this is nonsense, and furthermore, their pet drugs, the protease inhibitors that supposedly ended AIDS, are rarely prescribed any longer, in favor of older drugs whose “backbone” is an NRTI. (Hmmm.) I also know AIDSTruth very well; it was run in part at the time by a real piece of work, Dr. John Moore. (There is a rather interesting critique of him here, if you’re interested.) They went after me a few times back in the day. What a relief it must have been for them to have been able to “mothball the website” in 2015, when they decided that “denialism was history.”

Oops—too soon. They must be in a cold panic now. No wonder they tried to stop publication of my book. And when I say “they,” I am specifically referring to ACT UP and its subsidiary, Treatment Action Group, both of whom were involved in the successful attempt to censor advertisements for lawsuits against Gilead Pharmaceuticals for Truvada and associated TDF-containing drugs. Remember that? Activists were so upset that the toxicities of the drugs they so enthusiastically promote might be made public and that victims might be made aware that they were entitled to legal recourse that they launched a letter writing campaign to Facebook that resulted in almost all of the ads being removed. Over 26,000 plaintiffs later, these lawsuits are going to be a real problem for them.

The piece then laments that “denialism in back,” “advanced by Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein, and the least of the lesser Kennedys, RFK Jr.” All I can say about that is it’s no wonder Kennedy is running as an independent. This next paragraph is super interesting:

I don’t have time to delve into the psychology and politics of AIDS denialism—though it contains more than a little bit of racism, homophobia, and antisemitism—but I recommend Seth Kalichman’s Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy and Nicoli Nattrass’s Mortal Combat: AIDS Denialism and the Struggle for Antiretrovirals in South Africa to those interested in understanding its domestic and global roots and impact.

Okay, first of all, I can understand the perception of certain aspects of HIV AIDS criticism as being homophobic, although I am convinced that the true homophobic theory is HIV AIDS itself, obviously. I have long contended that the HIV AIDS story intentionally marginalizes and targets the gay and African American communities, and it’s getting alarming thanks to the massive push for PrEP, but the activist types have done a decent job of spin on this one. But—antisemitism? What about HIV AIDS criticism is antisemitic? I’m all for calling out antisemitism at every turn, but I’m honestly mystified by this. If anyone knows why he would say this, drop it in the comments because this one passed me by entirely. I thought I’d heard every criticism possible leveraged against HIV AIDS critics, but this is a new one on me.

The funniest part of this is his recommendation of Seth Kalichman’s book. If you’ll recall, this is the tome in which Dr. Kalichman, an actual psychologist, breaks one of the cardinal rules of psychotherapy by effectively diagnosing an entire group of people he’d never met, from a distance, with serious psychological conditions. If this is Gonsalves’ highest recommendation, maybe we shouldn’t be too worried. (Credit where credit is due—the contents of the book were cringe-inducing, but it was quite entertainingly written.) Moving on.

All these years later, it’s questionable how much of an impact the new AIDS denialists will have. But there is also the question of how scientists and the rest of us should respond to denialism. Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee have a wonderful article on this in the European Journal of Public Health from 2009, which discusses how to address denialism in all its manifestations from AIDS, to evolution, to climate change.

“There is also the question of how scientists and the rest of us should respond to denialism.” Okay, wow. This is where the rubber hits the road. This next part is alarming (emphasis mine unless noted otherwise):

Diethelm and McKee suggest that it is natural for scientists to want to debate, to test the proposed hypotheses and weigh the evidence, but warn that denialists don’t play by the rules of scientific discourse and will move the goalposts in any debate and deploy other strategies to subvert any kind of sincere engagement. They recommend instead naming denialists for what they are and pointing out their well-worn tactics: introducing conspiracies, enlisting fake experts, selectively using the scientific literature, raising the burden of proof so high that no real scientific work could offer answers on the topic at hand, by invoking logical fallacies and outright misrepresenting the facts.

Let me translate this for you: Don’t debate anyone that dissents with the anointed theory, but instead attack them directly. I have some experience with that. This has been their tactic since their very first refusal to allow anyone to debate Peter Duesberg, and their tactics have not changed. This phenomenon by itself should tell you everything you need to know about the quality of the evidence on their side. They could have killed this decades ago if they were correct, simply by allowing the debate to take place. Unfortunately for them the worldwide (intentional?) bungling of the Covid crisis has woken up countless individuals to the fact that the public health establishment is manipulative, coercive and dishonest. Now that that cat is out of the bag, it may prove very difficult to coax it back in.

Also—critics “violate the rules of scientific discourse?” Who decides that? Suppressing debate is itself a violation; perhaps the cardinal violation in scientific advancement, if that’s what the goal here really is. I’m starting (ha!) to wonder. And aren’t the rules of science itself (see Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Michael Strevens) more important than the cockamamie world of discourse the AIDS activists have chanted and threatened their way into?

Lastly, some of the “tactics” he accuses “denialists” of using are themselves used by the AIDS establishment. Selectively using the scientific literature? How about gatekeeping via peer review to such an extent that no dissent was permitted in the scientific literature from the very beginning, based on flimsy evidence—the foundation of which was Gallo’s 1984 Science paper in which he only found HIV-related genetic material in fewer than half of his AIDS cohort? We are taught that correlation is not causation, but this is a spurious correlation. That paper alone ought to have been more than sufficient to open the debate, not close it. And that paper is still cited as foundational; its results have not been improved upon.

The article goes on to cite The Great Barrington Declaration as an example of denialism at its finest, because you knew they had to throw the Covid critics under the bus, as well. I’m still waiting for the part where he says how the activists ought to “deal with us,” beyond “don’t debate; just smear.”

Okay, here we go. I think I now understand his concern.

But my greatest fear right now is that we are about to get our own taste of Thabo. Donald Trump has come out blazing against routine childhood vaccinations with remarks in Virginia a few days ago that suggest he would defund schools that require vaccines for children, which include mumps, measles and rubella, polio, and chickenpox.

I should have known that Trump would somehow come up. Since when was Donald Trump an AIDS critic? Since never, as far as I know. I didn’t even know he was a vaccine critic; he certainly wasn’t in 2020. And let me be clear, this is in no way a political endorsement. I hate to have to say that if I even so much as mention Trump. I’m a libertarian, and I was appalled at how Trump dealt with Covid at first—let’s not forget Operation Warp Speed—though he did reverse course. But the political mudslinging this election cycle is certainly the ugliest I’ve ever seen. Does ACT UP really think that Trump is going to suddenly become a vocal HIV AIDS critic if he assumes office? Maybe they know something I don’t. We’re almost done. Thank God.

If scientists should push back on denialism and call it out in our disciplines, we have a different responsibility in the public arena. Thabo Mbeki and his cabal of AIDS denialists, including his health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang (who recommended beetroot, garlic, and ginger to treat HIV!), were defeated by the brave activists of the Treatment Action Campaign, in alliance with a broad spectrum of South African civil society, from scientists to the clergy. This election year, we need to learn from their example.

Those of us in public health and clinical medicine need to lead a campaign to ensure that Donald Trump does not get elected and that the Weinsteins, Rogans, and RFK Jr.s of the world do not gain an even bigger foothold. This isn’t partisan—it’s about the politics of public health Trump and his allies hold, which are hazardous to our health. What’s at stake is the health of the nation. There’s no more time for sitting on the sidelines.

The brave activists of the Treatment Action Campaign? Those same brave activists that suppressed the information about Truvada’s devastating toxicities and, when caught, attempted to spin the entire situation into one in which “they were right?” That’s a lie we caught them in, in real time.

So this is the big snappy conclusion to this article. The only way to stop HIV AIDS denialism is to make sure Trump doesn’t get elected. (Also, “deal with the public differently,” which basically means lie to us.) This might be the most bizarre take I’ve seen so far, and I’ve seen some very weird things over the years. I have to say I’m a little disappointed but ultimately unsurprised that this was the big takeaway. The tactics they have been using for the past forty years have not achieved their desired effect, which is to totally silence us, forever. What a devastating blow it must have been to see the Rogan interview after having triumphantly retired the AIDSTruth website in 2015, under the mistaken impression that HIV AIDS denialism was “history.”

Luckily, two sides can play this game. The fact that they are scared enough to publish this pompous opinion piece at this point in history is somehow encouraging. For my part, I will continue to call out their lies and the disastrous effects of the medications they are so eager to get every member of a risk group on for life, regardless of “HIV” status (hi, PrEP!) as long as I am able to do so. I’ll conclude with the following wonderful quote from Elinor Burkett from years ago, but relevant today more than ever.

What is AIDS? According to the federal government, it is a 10-page single-spaced collection of diseases, conditions under which the diseases must occur, test parameters and pure deduction. The only thing that holds this mind-numbing definition together is: HIV. If you have certain kinds of pneumonia and HIV, you have AIDS. If you have those kinds of pneumonia and you don't test positive for HIV, you're just a poor slob who has been around too many people spewing pneumonia germs.

If HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS, then the effort to fight the disease is in chaos. In fact, we wouldn't even know what disease-or how many different diseases-we are fighting. HIV is the glue that holds together an amorphous syndrome of usually common and nonlethal ailments that are hitting uncommon groups of people or becoming strangely lethal.

If HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS, then five years of desperate searching for a way to kill a virus in already infected people-a feat that has never been accomplished with any virus-might have been spent more productively on another course of research.

For scientists, the idea at this late date that HIV is not a lone assassin is the worst possible news. In the bars outside medical conferences and in off-the-record conversations, dozens of AIDS researchers admit they are disturbed by the persistent failure of the most monumental medical research effort in the nation's history to yield clear proof that HIV is a lone assassin.

Yet in public, and on-the-record, few will express those doubts. "I'd bet my professional reputation that something more than HIV is involved in this disease," said one federally funded AIDS researcher. "But I wouldn't bet my grants, my ability to work."

If there is fear about questioning the established line of thought, it is not because there is any conspiracy against skeptics: It is the intuitive understanding that the last thing anybody wants to hear is what the skeptics are saying. It is just too scary.

"What epidemiologist or federal official wants to admit that the entire thrust of research and education might be misguided?" asks Robin Haueter, an AIDS activist in New York City. "What person with AIDS wants to consider the horrendous thought that we have wasted five years of research, that the end might not be anywhere in sight?"

To support my work on Substack, please purchase my book for yourself or for a friend, and leave a review on Amazon. You can learn about efforts to ban my book here. You can also buy my new book Almost Cancelled (which discusses Treatment Action Group in detail.)

If you’re a new reader and would like some background as to my views on HIV AIDS, including the “existence” question, please refer to this post and the links contained therein.