Now do AIDS.

This playbook began long before Covid.

I was recently directed to an article on MSN.com that would have, just a year ago, caused laughter and derision but that now, three years in, probably seems entirely reasonable to those that would have derided it in 2020/21. The opinion piece was written by an MD/PhD student named Kevin Bass, and you can read it in its entirety here, "It's time for the scientific community to admit we were wrong about Covid and it cost lives."

In the article, Mr. Bass points out that the “scientific community” repeatedly “overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety.”

He continues by crediting scientists such as John Ioannidis, Scott Atlas, and Jay Bhattacharya, among others, for sounding the early alarm regarding aggressive, unprecedented protocols such as lockdowns and universal mask mandates; and admits that the scientific community treated them unfairly when in the end, they turned out to be correct in their caution. He also admits that the policies of the elites had a profound negative effect on the lower and working classes.

We created policy based on our preferences, then justified it using data. And then we portrayed those opposing our efforts as misguided, ignorant, selfish, and evil. [emphasis mine].

This playbook is not new to Covid, though the population at large could be forgiven for not realizing that. Suppression of scientific dissent is not new, but it really had new life breathed into it with the advent of AIDS.

Policy was immediately created based on a research model that too soon settled into far too narrow a focus on HIV as the causative agent of AIDS. We let research be limited to, for a long time, a very narrowly defined T-cell-depletion model of AIDS, while ignoring the many immunological and systemic abnormalities that occur in both HIV-positive and HIV-negative AIDS patients. “Massive inflammation” was never even considered, although given that lymphoma and cardiac events are now very common morbidities among AIDS patients, perhaps it ought to have been.

We were promised a vaccine and a cure that, 39 years later, have yet to eventuate.

Millions of AIDS patients were put on the toxic DNA chain terminator AZT, to the tune of such massive disability and loss of life that it would be appropriate to demand reparations for the victims of AZT.

When AZT failed, the medical community used the provably corrupt predictions of Ho/Wei and Shaw to justify “hit hard, hit early” antiretroviral multi-drug therapies, despite the lack of clinical trials demonstrating any decreases in morbidity and mortality, and despite the disabling side effects of these medications. The ongoing Truvada lawsuit is only the tip of the iceberg regarding the toxic effects of these medications.

And now, the concept of “hit hard, hit early” is reaching unprecedented heights with the advent of and push for PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) to be prescribed to HIV-negative individuals as “HIV prevention.” This madness seems, creepily, to be marketed heavily to the gay and African American communities, if the advertisements are any indication.

Indeed, this latest development in “HIV prevention” further perpetuates the ghettoization and “othering” of communities we have designated to be “at risk”, a ghettoization that has been in place since the beginning. We marginalized these “at risk” communities, cementing in place an unfair and false impression of “dirty” and “other”—an impression that is entirely illusory given the uniform prevalence of HIV-positivity throughout the population and the massive, almost entirely ignored issue of HIV-negative AIDS. But to make it worse, we are now using these bankrupt concepts to try and sell toxic, lifelong chemotherapy to HIV-negative members of “risk groups.” If that doesn’t send a chill down your spine, you’re not paying attention.

It’s not too late to begin to reverse the damage. It begins by honestly examining existing HIV treatments, fully informing patients of the risks of these drugs, but it doesn’t stop there. We must also seriously consider the validity of the seminal studies that have influenced HIV prevention and treatment. Rather than getting into endless arguments about whether HIV causes AIDS or even exists as an exogenous retrovirus—a strategy that, frankly, is not working for anyone—we must ask which papers are unreproducible and are possible candidates for retraction. But further, we need to stop being so closed minded and wedded to our own premature conclusions that we fail to think critically and even call for censorship of those who question the prevailing consensus. It seems fitting to conclude with something very important Mr. Bass said in his opinion piece:

We made science a team sport, and in so doing, we made it no longer science. […] Solving these problems in the long term requires a greater commitment to pluralism and tolerance in our institutions, including the inclusion of critical if unpopular voices. [emphasis mine]

Preorder my new book, “The Real AIDS Epidemic,” for a limited presale price of $2.99 for Kindle, here.