Why would AIDS activists want to burn books in 2023?
(Disclaimer: I am addressing this article specifically because it unapologetically calls for censorship. Moving forward, I will be extremely selective as to which attacks I respond to because I don’t want to get mired in defensiveness and mudslinging when there are other matters that need my attention more.)
This past Friday an article was published on the body.com called “AIDS denialism is still deadly in 2023.” For those not familiar with this website, it was established in 1995 and part of its stated goal is to “publish vital HIV-related information, news, support and personal perspectives.” A quick visit to the site hints strongly that they get plenty of advertising money from pharmaceutical companies specializing in drug-based HIV treatment and prevention (PrEP).
I thought at first glance, based upon the title of this article, that it was a generic piece about the alleged dangers of questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis but no. In the very second paragraph, “Communications director of AVAC and founder of PrEP4All” Jason Rosenberg calls out my upcoming book as a prime example of the “dangers of AIDS denialism.” After a few paragraphs deriding the Truvada lawsuit and touting the alleged benefits of prescribing toxic anti-HIV medication to HIV-negative individuals for life, as well as boasting that he is “no stranger to deplatforming dangerous ideas,” he ends his screed with a request: “Simon & Schuster, do the right thing and cancel the damn book.”
Again I ask: Why would AIDS activists want to burn books in 2023? What are they so afraid of?
Why are AIDS activists afraid of the consequences of opening the replication and retraction debate? Surely if they are correct, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Why do AIDS activists want us to be silent about the 23,000 plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit regarding kidney and bone damage from the drug Truvada? With an estimate of about 1 million HIV-positive Americans, that figure amounts to 2% of the total number of HIV- positive Americans, and these are merely the people who have come forward.
Why do AIDS activists want us to be silent about the millions of cases of HIV- negative AIDS, which may encompass conditions such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Long Covid?
Why are AIDS activists so reluctant to answer basic questions about the science behind the pharmaceutical treatments they shill?
If they are correct, I am not a threat to them, nor is my book. They haven’t read it (or if they read Science Sold Out back in 2007, they certainly haven’t read all of it). They don’t even know what it says, so how can they be so certain it needs to be censored? Again I ask:
Why would AIDS activists want to ban books in 2023? What do they have to gain from censorship — or perhaps more importantly, what do they have to lose by not censoring?
The gaslighting of HIV whistleblowers, and more generally medical whistleblowers, must stop. Tony Fauci does not equal science, and neither do AIDS activists. Just say NO to censorship.
Buy my book, available at a temporary presale price of $2.99 for kindle here, and fight censorship at the grassroots.
The Truvada Lawsuit was a marketing ploy by Gilead. After they got their drug approved for PrEP in 2012, Gilead funded AHF to sue Gilead based on a false claim that Gilead withheld a drug that was "safer" than Truvada. The issue was the FDA put an advertising ban on PrEP in 2012 that expired in 2019, and PrEP went off patent in 2021 - so what Gilead wanted to do is create marketing buzz that the "me too" drug for PrEP (Descovy) was "safer" than Truvada so starting in 2019/20, guys would start to ask for Descovy, which was $1800/month vs. Truvada which is now about $400/month.