Those who can make you believe absurdities, will make you commit atrocitie —Voltaire

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Questions On AIDS Denial

This article was written especially for the Alternative Gay & Lesbian Zine where you can find the article in the Political & Social section.


Let’s think.

Ever since the AIDS crisis began, there have been a group of people who have maintained (contrary to official belief) that the retrovirus known as HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS. These people have been labelled “AIDS denialists”. The media in general is littered with articles and works that support the official hypothesis that refers to these people, and the questions they have raised as: “denial”.

Why denial?

To find the answer to that question you have to start by thinking and looking at AIDS not in scientific terms, but push AIDS exclusively on to the political and sociological arena. There language is used in a much more complex way. It is used to talk clearly, to suggest or imply, at times even to make direct and “conditioning” comparisons through indirect language. In other words, in politics you can’t just read the lines, but you have to read in-between the lines as well to get the full picture.

The word “denial” is used to associate all the people who do not believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS with “holocaust deniers” or even “God deniers”. Can anything be more conditioning, manipulative and dishonest than that? It kills any possibility for a real and fair debate to even start. It stinks. Everyone would recognise that if they saw it. It’s what the vast majority of people would consider as “playing dirty”.

Why do we need to play dirty?

This supremely important debate has had to stay mired for a quarter of a century in a stench of censorship; deceit, dirty tricks and general denial that cannot have done us any good at all. Speaking personally it makes me feel quite sick every time I think of it.

I think it is dangerous and unacceptable that this manipulation has been used so freely and gone unchallenged by the majority of people for so long. It has been applauded and encouraged by many, it is the accepted means to deal with twenty-five years of serious questions and concerns. How is this beneficial to us as a whole and to the debate? Do we really accept this as representative of the way we think? Do we actually think in this way? Because if we did, it would be a very clear sign that we are not thinking.
______

Whatever you believe to be the cause of AIDS is really irrelevant here. It’s what you hold to be true to you that counts, and that’s precisely what could land you in very hot water. It can leave you ostracised and with the title of “denialist” or “murderer” dangling over your head, or even worse, as some are calling for legislation to imprison people who speak about this important issue, they say is absolutely closed and needs no more debate.

Does the HIV=AIDS debate need to put people in prison?
Why?

Apparently to protect me from the evil ways of these people who (they say) are motivated by a deep hate of humanity and life. They also do it to protect the truth. But what truth? Whose truth? Putting people in prison does not protect or reveal any truths except one: that what you are calling truth is a totally forced and false consensus based on fear, and no matter how hard one tries, and how many times it is repeated, whatever that is, it can never qualify as truth. It’s fear.

Do we need more fear in relation to HIV & AIDS?
_____

We are also told to believe that the denialists are a bunch of stupid “nutters”, just like those who believed that the earth was flat, and that the sun went round the earth. But it was the majority who believed the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe. Everyone believed that! So in fact these so called denialists stand for quite the contrary. I would say that they are more like Galileo, a minority belief, taking on the tyranny of imposed collective belief and official dogma. Galileo was even sent to prison too. So, as you see, that comparison for the denialists does not hold well either.

So they are guilty of homophobia.
Of course some have accused them of that too.

That’s a strange accusation to put on their heads considering they are the ones claiming that a great crime may have been committed against humanity, especially against gay men, through what is termed “Iatrogenic-genocide”. How is this homophobia? Where is the homophobia…where the denial? In this light, such an accusation is ridiculous, but again, some, to tarnish their reputations, label them as unacceptable, slander them and block the debate, some fire the accusation of homophobia at them, knowing the denialists don’t have the space in the media to be able to even defend themselves. Is this not grave and worrying, considering it is done in all our names under the pretence of protecting us as gay people? This can’t be right.
______

It seems very ironic that when you challenge these assumptions, these conditioning labels and comparisons one by one, you find that in each case, the challenge does not make the initial accusation go away. It only seems to shift it over on to the heads of those making the accusations in the first place. Maybe that’s why they have to call people names, instead of debating the issues. Who are they really protecting? I can’t see how they are protecting me through attacking and not debating those that are trying to point out to them that they are wrong. They simply usurp the high moral ground and do not debate but attack. Have any of them ever read or seen a Greek Tragedy? Maybe they should go see one, there too everyone takes the high moral ground so they can see where it always leads to. I recommend Medea. It’s a great show, about a very angry, hurt, betrayed woman with supernatural powers, who takes on to the high moral ground when her lover leaves her for another younger woman. She is fuming. She ends up having to hack her two young boys to pieces to prove (what for her) is a high moral point. So if to start off with she was only half human, through her actions she becomes totally inhuman.

We are humans and therefore have certain limitations that gods, monsters, heroes and entities with supernatural powers don’t have, and some of us have learned to accept them gladly, with the help of every day that we live on, or every Greek Tragedy we go see. We can’t be spoken to from that high moral ground, because we know that it is completely false. We see through it. It’s just a fabricated consensus, nothing more.
____

People who do not believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS are “dissidents” to the official theory, and not “denialsits”. They are denying nothing at all. They “dissent” against the imposed idea that a single virus called HIV causes AIDS. If anything they are the ones being denied the platform to speak, and we the benefit of hearing what it is they have to say. This quarter of a century long stagnant state of affairs has not benefited them, and it certainly has not benefit us either.

I say let’s hear the “dissidents” too and have no more “denying” of any kind and from any side. No more censorship. No more fear. No more shame.

Manu.
11/7/07

PS. I thank the zine for giving me the chance to express these views here and on a clean slate, without any conditioning or accusatory title to justify them such as “denialist” or “mureder”. It’s a sign that maybe the times are truly changing.

3 comments:

David Crowe said...

Science should progress through debate and discussion. The fact that HIV=AID$=Death dogmatists want to suppress debate by a variety of means says that they are not scientists. And what have these brilliant people given us over 25 years? No vaccine, highly toxic drugs, unvalidated tests. And, more than anything, they have given us fear. Fear of sex. Fear of being alive. Fear of being healthy even (because good health apparently just hides bad 'numbers' like low CD4 counts or high 'viral load').

bill parish said...

The term "HIV Denier" or "HIV Denialist" is not even English.

If you don't believe in God, are you a "God Denier"?

What if, like many people of good faith, you have doubts about God or even questions? Is that so bad?

Same thing with the virus theory of AIDS. What's wrong with departing from the herd, and having a few doubts?

Federico said...

If you believed that Inquisition was dead, this is the occasion to doubt about this statement and realize that someone wants you not to investigate, think and have alternative suggestions. The only thing you are supposed to do is following the flock and be like the others. Anytime you wish to raise your head and look over the foggy dictates you risk to be marked with a scarlet letter, as it always happened during the past centuries. Which is the simplest way to censure those who have another point of view? Just with an identification that makes them different, worse and socially unacceptable. All this – of course! – according to the official doctrines and believes. There is a subtle difference between “denial” and “dissident” and it all stays in the negative connotation of the first word in comparison with the other one. We should be careful when we speak and when we read, we should concentrate in the implications of definitions and sentences. Otherwise we assume any doctrine as a matter of fact and we never suspect of any common believe: this way any kind of censorship keeps on insinuating in our life.

I am not able to investigate the medicine but I am still able to think and question. The policy of pseudo-truth and terrorism always intended and intends to fix the status quo and overcome any effort to develop any alternative opinion. Those who protect the truth with coercive methods demonstrate how fragile that truth is. And those who stigmatise with offensive words or symbols need to isolate those who dissent and disagree. In any field, any society and age: the absolute monarchies of indoctrination always use the weapon of fear against those who doubt. And this is even more unacceptable if you have to do with human lives and health in the XXI century!

If different studies and enquiries may help to fight and defeat AIDS, they should be welcomed and not condemned. The right to debate and investigate is fundamental: fear is the enemy of evolution and improvement. And if you don’t question you simply encourage and give your implicit consent to preserve the stagnant state of affairs.