New video calls out RFK Jr’s “HIV AIDS denial”

Expect to see much more of this leading up to November

I was sent this video, from a YouTube channel called “Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson.” I won’t link to his channel, but you can find it easily by opening the YouTube link embedded below.

(I will point out that he keeps saying things like, “But wait, here comes the worst part” several times. Which is the worst part, Dr. Wilson?)

He doesn’t spend a lot of time on RFK himself, except to present a video clip in which he discusses the toxicities of poppers and other recreational drugs, and to mention the AIDS section in The Real Anthony Fauci. He spends most of his time on the familiar propaganda. His arguments are nothing new to HIV AIDS critics, but I’ll just counteract some of the claims he makes.

First of all, RFK Jr. does not actually claim that AIDS is caused by the “gay lifestyle,” whatever that is (I didn’t know there was only one), but speculates that it might be caused specifically by drug use. As far as I’m aware, RFK has never stated that simply being gay by itself causes AIDS. It’s an important distinction, and it’s curious that Dr. Wilson and others make this leap. The “gay lifestyle” (again, the phrase is nonsensical) is not synonymous with drug use. I can give you plenty of counter examples. Moreover, there are many HIV AIDS critics that don’t agree with this alternative causation theory of drug use; there are other “alternative theories,” the exploration of none of which has been supported in any meaningful way. Even Luc Montagnier, who won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of “HIV,” maintained that “HIV” is not sufficient for AIDS and required cofactors.

He then invokes the “overwhelming medical consensus” on causation without mentioning a few things. Perhaps the most important is that the foundation for the entire theory remains Gallo et al’s 1984 Science paper, “Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLVIII) from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS,” in which he managed to find “HIV” in fewer than half of his AIDS patients, and which appeared in the literature after the theory was announced to the world via press conference. Gallo also committed a major error in that he used unmatched controls. However, the entire industry was predicated on this idea, planted in the public mind with the April 1984 press conference, this paper and the three accompanying it, as well as by employing the neat linguistic trick of renaming HTLVIII “human immunodeficiency virus,” cementing in the public consciousness just how scared we should be. Regardless, this caused the research to fall almost immediately into a very narrow channel of investigation. The entire theory and the industry it has spawned has depended upon circular logic and suppression of any alternative theories, from the beginning. If researchers are only allowed to look for one thing, that’s all they’ll find. The advent of in silico modeling only makes it worse.

Regardless, despite the many hundreds of thousands of papers written on this alleged virus, including some of my own from when I still worked in “HIV” mathematical modeling, there remain some unanswered questions and real mysteries that ought to have been solved by now, given the Herculean effort that was undertaken. Here are just a few that Dr. Wilson does not address, or misrepresents.

One thing that he does mention that I would like to address is that there is still no medical consensus as to how “HIV” destroys CD4+ T cells in vivo. That’s a pretty big problem.

Has “HIV” really been isolated as he states? What is your definition of “isolation,” Dr. Wilson? And given its “remarkable hypervariability,” how is it possible to have its genome perfectly characterized?

He then mentions the “miraculous” (his words) medications that “practically don’t affect your quality of life at all.” Tell that to the Truvada victims—including some who don’t even “have HIV” and are taking Truvada for PrEP—who are in wheelchairs or have had hip replacements due to the osteoporosis caused by these “miraculous” medications. He also doesn’t mention that these drugs are not specific to “HIV” and are in fact used for hepatitis B and even Covid, as Paxlovid contains ritonavir, an “HIV” protease inhibitor. Furthermore, he should know very well that a drug appearing to work sometimes does not prove the drug’s specificity. Off label use of medication is evidence of that.

He also mentions Africa, but does not mention the weird fact that the “African strain” known as “HIV2” is supposedly primarily transmitted via vaginal sex, whereas the strain in North America and Europe, “HIV1,” is supposedly primarily transmitted anally, yet bizarrely, there has been so little travel or mixing over forty years across the continents over forty plus years that “HIV2” is really not prevalent outside of Africa. That’s not how an infectious disease works. (And how are there only two strains, when per the mainstream, “HIV” can be thought of as a quasi species since no two identical “HIV” genetic sequences have been found even in the same patient?)

There are a few contradictions in the theory that he doesn’t mention. The fact that a vaccine is apparently impossible to develop is never discussed, despite the fact that we were promised one by 1986. I’d be interested to hear why he thinks that’s the case. He also doesn’t mention PrEP at all, including the bizarre case in which a patient on PrEP somehow managed to develop “antibodies to HIV” despite having no measurable viral load, which as we know overestimates actual viral burden. I wonder what he thinks those antibodies are reacting to? He also glosses over the demographic data of “HIV positivity” that are inconsistent not only with the incidence of AIDS but with the behavior of an infectious agent.

This post is already too long, but I would like to point out that he ends the video by slandering the memories of Christine Maggiore and her daughter Eliza Jane. As many people know, Christine’s story was not nearly so simple as the mainstream depicts it to be. In fact, she had even been accused of faking her “HIV positivity” because of her inconsistent test results and excellent health. Furthermore, she did not “develop AIDS” in the standard way, but rather got sick and died very quickly after having been quite healthy. I knew a perfectly healthy, “HIV negative” 32 year old woman who died in exactly the same manner as Christine, so Christine’s story can prove nothing about AIDS causation. The slander she endured at the hands of the AIDS activists for years would be enough to destroy anyone. As to Eliza Jane, she did not have AIDS related symptoms and, despite having been tested for “HIV” at autopsy, those test results were never made public. That’s pretty weird. The story is far more complex than Dr. Wilson portrays, and I honestly find it disgusting that people continue to exploit Christine in death after everything she went through in her life. Let them rest in peace.

And that’s all I’m going to say about that. I will conclude with a reminder that at every point in the history of science, much of what we have believed to be true with near total certainty has since been proven wrong. There is no reason at all to be so hubristic as to imagine that this is not the case today. We are not at the apex of medical or scientific knowledge, and the HIV AIDS story still, after all this time, contains many contradictions and unanswered questions.

If you watch the video, let me know what you think and if I missed any of his points.

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. Or consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

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. My interview with Sam Bailey is also a great introduction.