| |

How I became a Taliban

I confess.

Lock me up, torture me and ship me off to some lawless land so you can shove embers under my fingernails and then stone me until I’m dead. I deserve that and worse. Maybe my corpse should be dragged across a stony field for good measure, the remains left for scavengers and vermin.

I confess that I have a lot of questions about HIV and AIDS. I admit that I have developed a well-earned distrust of the sloppy and possibly criminal “scientific research” behind the discovery of a virus. (also see here)

There is more than one name for people like me. The nicer ones include skeptic, dissident, questioner, rethinker. Those in the mainstream of AIDS who are threatened by questions, derisively call us “denialists”.

Denialist.

As in denying that the Nazi holocaust happened, denying that the world is round, denying a man walked on the moon. Labeling us like this is just one of the time-proven means used to discourage anyone from questioning the mainstream dogma. Their message is clear:  you too will be ostracized if you dare to question the powers that be.

I did not come to this place called AIDS dissidence easily. For twenty years I accepted the government’s pronouncements and I trusted the scientific community’s commitment to unbiased research. Without questioning, I tested for “the virus” every year. After one of those tests came back “positive”, I took my meds without fail until I was so ill that I had no choice but to follow my own path for more answers. I’ve spent much of the last ten years digging, reading, asking and digging some more, trying to understand something that even science now admits is not understood: how does HIV cause AIDS? What heals a broken immune system?

I won’t debate, discuss, argue or try to explain here why anyone should even consider there might be different perspectives concerning AIDS. That’s what google, the Internet and the extensive list of links here are for, if you’re really that interested. I have bookshelves full of books and there are entire libraries of Dissident information online. There is no profit to be had by promoting this knowledge, so it is not delivered to you in soundbites on television, or even from most news sources, but it is available to those who seek it.

What I am calling out today is another distasteful and potentially dangerous tactic being resorted to in the ongoing attempt to demote AIDS dissidents’ views to irrelevance:  association by name calling. Peter Staley, whom I’ve known of since the earliest years of the AIDS crisis, has stooped to that tactic by calling anyone who challenges the mainstream AIDS establishment “Taliban”.

What rot. What nerve. What hypocrisy.

First, some disclosure. I do not represent nor do I receive any remuneration from any pharmaceutical or medical interests. Can former AIDS activist-turned-Drug activist Peter Staley say the same thing?

Peter blogs at poz.com, which is owned by AIDSmeds.com, which is owned by, well you figure that one out. His target audience is obviously people living with a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS, and the primary topics are treatment “options”, though the only real options presented are which pharmaceutical manufacturer will be enriched.

Peter Staley

A few weeks ago Peter’s post quoted an LA Times editorial that admonishes AIDS denialists for convincing South African president Thabo Mbeki to block distribution of western pharmaceutical drugs to treat “AIDS”. The editorial references a study that alleged “330,000 people died as a consequence of the government’s denial and 35,000 babies were born with the disease.”

There are alternate views about so much in that editorial, not the least of which is that “AIDS” in Africa is not the same thing as “AIDS” in the US and Western Europe, for starters. No tests are required there for an AIDS diagnosis, and tropical diseases such as malaria, TB, diptheria and even severe malnutrition can be misdiagnosed as AIDS. People who lack even access to clean water to take their pills with have far more pressing concerns than boosting the bottom lines of BigPharma. As for the referenced “Harvard study”, well that is thoroughly debunked here.

Disagreement about emotional issues is a human trait that I’ve come to accept, whether it be about religion, abortion, vaccines, evolution, global warming, economic stimulus or something else. On this issue there is a basic disagreement over whether the cause of AIDS has been indisputably proven to be a virus, and more importantly if a lifetime of non-stop chemotherapy is the best way to improve a failing immune system.

Peter thinks it has been and it is and that if I or anyone else disagrees with him we’re responsible for the deaths of millions of people. That is an accusation I will not bear without responding. How dare you Peter!

From my perspective, I think that Peter has sold out and now works for an industry that manufactures products that kills thousands of people every year in the name of health. Hey, we’re all entitled to our points of view.

It gets worse. Like many of his ilk, Peter has a very visible pulpit from which he is agitating his base of followers, people who have been diagnosed with a death sentence who are convinced their very lives depend on the drugs Peter peddles. A pulpit funded from a deep reservoir of money from government and industry sources with a vested interest in defending their products and messages.

Peter’s followers prove just how well the strategy of name calling works. What follows are some comments about AIDS questioners from Peter’s recent post:

“…I am at a point where I truly believe these denialist need to be held accountable for the myriad of deaths that they are DIRECTLY responsible for! It is for that reason that I am putting all my efforts into bringing them to accountability via the law… I whole-heartedly believe that now, with the death of Ms. Maggiore, along with the deaths of over 300,000 S. Africans, is the time to bring this matter to the American Court System.”

I’m not too worried about upholding my rights to free thought and free speech in the courts, but still, this kind of thinking is disturbing at best.

It gets even worse.

“I disagree with [previous commenter]. This is not a case for the courts. It is a case for the military, the CIA. If we bring them to court, we have to provide habeas corpus and maybe even let some of them loose on bail so they can stalk the stalk our streets and infect good healthy American gays with their vile ideology of hate and destruction.

kill them where you find them I say, just as they want to kill us. But first we need to waterboard them to make them reveal their nefarious plots against public health, as well as the identities of their comrades.

Not one can be allowed to escape. Let’s start Project Informer. Inform on everybody who doesn’t believe that HIV equals Death, or who refuses to take the life-saving test, or refuses to take the life-saving drugs. Inform on them so they can get abducted and questioned in Syria or Egypt where they are not as soft as the denialist-enabling [previous commenter].”

Notice that the commenter above claims that dissidents have an ideology of hate and destruction, while threatening to torture us, then kill us if we choose not to take the drugs? Who sounds like the Taliban in this conversation?

Worst of all, looking over his shoulder, Peter Staley watches over his blog from above.

It gives a whole meaning to the old ACT UP chant: Silence=Death.

Shame.

–*–

Wait... there's more!

  • 97

    97. That’s my latest CD4+ count, less than half the count from six weeks ago.

    That’s it. I have tried as many alternative treatments as I can think of to reverse the decline. I will be starting my third round of pharmaceutical ARVs as soon as I can get a prescription and fill it.

    This decision has been a long time coming, and in hindsight, I probably should have restarted a few months ago. There’s nothing magical about 97, or being below 100, but it’s as good a breaking point as any. I’ve long argued that there are two things to keep in mind about CD4 counts: one is the long-term trend; the other is single- or low double-digit counts.

  • Reduce AIDS drug toxicity and side effects

    I embarked on my third course of ARVs since 1998. For ten of the sixteen years I have been HIV-positive, I was able to manage well enough without ARVs and I continue to believe there is no reason for otherwise healthy HIV-positive—let alone negative—gay men to take these drugs. To those who want to wave a recent study about the benefits of early intervention in my face, I would ask them why they put so much faith in a science that has utterly failed us to date.

  • The truth about Truvada: PrEP won’t stop AIDS

    I’m willing to grant that gay men are entitled to use PrEP… provided they have access to all the information they need to make an informed decision. Informed consent has been a hallmark of the HIV and AIDS research and prevention efforts for three decades, and that shouldn’t be waived for the campaign favoring PrEP.

    Gay men deserve to know that all the claims for Truvada reducing the risk of acquiring HIV-positivity  are based on trials—funded by Gilead—that emphasized the importance of using condoms…

  • Confessions of a heretic AIDS dissident

    You might not know it from reading the comments left here on my blog, but there are more than a few AIDS dissidents who really don’t like how I think or what I write about.

    There’s a whole thread on a very popular Facebook page called “Rethinking AIDS”, discussing my open letter to Dora. Last I looked, that thread had nearly 100 comments, and very few of those comments were about Dora, Ruggiero or the defense of academic freedom.

    No, the gist of the thread was whether or not I am in “the AIDS Zone.” It seems that because I did not use “air quotes” around the term “HIV disease”, I’m not really an AIDS dissident. Others took issue with my post for daring to publish that some AIDS Rethinkers hold a very narrow view about “HIV” and “AIDS”, while others of us are merely “questioning” the whole affair. None of them chose to comment directly to me here.

    Some of the most visible and vocal Rethinkers seem intent on imposing their own “beliefs” (another loaded term that deserves quotes) on the entire movement. There has long been a tendency to try to impose a sort of litmus test to determine whether or not one is a true “AIDS dissident”.

    Since I first met the AIDS dissident community via the AIDS Myth Exposed forums—since renamed Questioning AIDS—several years ago, I’ve become aware of several of the various factions, distinctive personalities and divisions within that broad group. Now I’m finding it ironic just how guilty some of these people are at their own version of “bone-pointing”.

3 Comments

  1. Jon,

    Read your Resistance is Fruitful “blog”, and see that you confess you are Taliban Man. Careful. You don’t want to end up like Johnny Walker.

    Yes, see where blog is mostly about Peter Staley and his blog in blogosphere. Wonder if Peter Staley will be responding directly. Believe research into HIV must be quietly grinding to a halt in economic downturn with current treatment options declared “good to go”! “Be back in 5 minutes” sign hung on nearly all medical research is double whammy, therefore, as that is what makes it easier for “mainstream science-types” to establish “only game in town” neutral-sounding proposition, and to urge your commitment to that.

    Parents with kids who are diagnosed with “autism” have similar concern. Autism is called “epidemic” in TV public service (fund raising) ads, and which provide startling figure that 1 out of every 166 kids born has this condition! But nobody knows why? And any “cure/prevention” research for autism has already yielded to “management scenario” of the brain/personality disorder. No research $$$ to dig deeper into mystery at the present time. But fund raising goes on as some kind of symbol of hope.

    Parents-to-be can only hope they will dodge this bullet, therefore. And Parents with kids who have the diagnosed condition were condemned by odds that were already running against them all thru period of pregnancy!

    There used to be something called a “coping mechanism” when bad things happened to good people, to use that expression. Now that life is so complicated there is only 5th Stage Kubler-Ross “acceptance”, and which is being urged on everyone as default setting.

    Will call this week.

    Tom

  2. Thank you for your response to Peter’s “POZ” statements.

    I wonder what he wants? Does he want all discussion to go away?

    It’s hard to figure out, but the more I know about this, the more I see that the authorities like Peter hate discussion, and hate science. They like to believe one thing and tell everyone else to shut it, but they won’t get into a real discussion.

    Hey Peter, come on man. You’re making the Aids industry look like a bunch of wackos and nut jobs! Threatening people who don’t agree with you?

    THAT is the definition of crazy and of the Taliban-ism Peter is accusing you of!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *