http://gallery.bogdan.org.ua/v/Misc/Conspiracy-Theory/AIDS-dissidents-denialists.flv.html
[*] Important: in this movie, AIDS is NOT properly defined. Based on a "wider" definition of AIDS, it is much easier to make the statements look "truth-like". However, this point is not mentioned anywhere in the movie; thus an unprepared watcher may be lured into the illusion of strong evidence presented in the movie.

[*] While watching the movie, I made some notes in the points where I [dis]agree. I must note, however, that I was watching this movie with a prejudice that it is wrong. My opinion didn't change at all by the end of the movie.

• Currently, there is no disagreement on the cause of AIDS
  zero cases of AIDS in 1980: it's just incorrect. As the disease was not known (characterized), it was not diagnosed as AIDS, but as other diseases. Thus zero cases - and not becauses "there was no disease".
  
• They ask, "Why has AIDS research failed?". I wouldn't say that it failed, though it's also hard to name it a success. But still, there are means to diagnose and cure - to prolong life expectancy for AIDS patients. Moreover, AIDS patients die not of AIDS itself, but of the so-called "opportunistic infections", which all do have cures. So the task is not to cure AIDS, but to stop and eliminate HIV. This task was not yet fully achieved.
  
• They say that AIDS isn't caused by HIV. Please see my note at the beginning on the definitions of AIDS.
  
• Here are some URLs for evidence I collected while watching the movie: HIV evidence, HIV evidence 2
  
• No proof is presented that treatment causes AIDS.
  
• They say, that "AIDS has had an impact on our entire culture"; which impact - is not specified. I would say that any new disease makes it impact on the society and culture, and AIDS is nothing special.
  
• AIDS is said to be the "dread over society". I may add heart diseases, cancer, and natural death to the list. So what is the point of stressing AIDS as the "dread"?
  
• Wow, the movie authors agree that AIDS is infectious. Everything is not as bad as I thought.
  
• There's a phrase, "unsuccessful virus cancer program". Why do they call it unsuccessful - hard to explain, as nowadays viruses are known to be the inducers of cancer diseases. Some of the viruses are cancer-associated, and others just are able to increase the chances of getting cancer.
  
• They say, that AIDS is a behavioural disease. However, if we take the commonly accepted definition of AIDS, then all AIDS patients have HIV; thus, this cannot be behavioural. If we take, on the other hand, a wider definition of AIDS (which includes any immune-deficiencies, not necessarily caused by HIV), then again the probably largest segment of HIV-induced AIDS is not behavioural, and the initial statement becomes complete nonsense.
  
• They say that Gallo transferred "cause of cancer to the cause of AIDS" after the "unsuccessful viral cancer program". However, HIV was known under various names in other parts of the world, and only later it became evident that all those viruses are really the same. Thus, by creating an impression that the virus was nominated the cause of the diseases by a single person, the movie makers create bias, which they need to hide the flaws in logic.
  
• Just a side-note: an "[AIDS] vaccine by 1986" is mentioned. However, nowadays at least several years are required for the new medication testing only; testing includes several phases (3 or 4, do not remember for sure). Thus, even if the vaccine would be readily available at the press-conference, it wouldn't have made it to the drugstores until 1986.
  
• They speak of "violations of scientific protocol", meaning that there was no review of the submitted article. At the same time, they say that Science published the article. Science is a peer-reviewed journal, thus there was a review before publication, and no "protocol" was violated.
  
• more evidence that HIV causes AIDS
  
• There is a phrase "fairly large reappraisal organization", which tells us that there are no direct tests of HIV as the cause of AIDS. However, throughout the whole movie not a single hint is given, why didn't the movie makers and the denialists shown test themselves if HIV is the cause of AIDS. If they were able to prove that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, that would have much more impact and effect than making crappy and dangerous movies. If someone watches the movie and believes it, then he might be doomed to get AIDS. And that would be the clear guilt of the movie makers.
  
• Finally, after mentioning this "list" several times, they come to the "10 points which will prove that HIV is not the cause of AIDS". I will not deny all the points, just because it had been a long time since I was watching this movie; but I'll do my best to disapprove those which I still remember:
  1. HIV develops within T-cells, and targets the immune system. This is the difference from other diseases, which make HIV much harder target for the immune system - especially if the immune system itself is under attack. Antibodies, when ready against the virus/bacteria, are NOT permanent protectors: some viral diseases develop only a short 1-month immunity. Widely known example is a flu: human's organism doesn't develop long-term immunity against flu.
  2. Retroviruses can and do kill cells. There are classical examples of viruses which can be either "latent" ("silent") or "acute". Such viruses may infect multiple cells with no immediately visible effects, but then - when living conditions change, for example - switch to "acute phase", destroy their cells, and break free and ready for further infections.
  3. The number of T-cells does decrease, which is sufficient.
  4. This one is funny :). Diseases are not usually caused by some specific "gene" (with exceptions, when e.g. some gene encodes a substance highly toxic for humans). Thus HIV, as a plethora of other viruses, doesn't have a "disease gene". But it targets the immune system cells, and causes damage this way. That is why, despite the absence of the "disease gene", it is still dangerous. As many other viral diseases.
  5. "Silent" viruses, without manifestations, do exist; this was already mentioned above. For example, some sexually transmitted diseases develop over 3-5 years, sometimes "disappearing" completely, but then returning fiercely. Thus it is not a wonder that some other disease also may last for long periods of time. Also, according to clinical research, AIDS patients with no treatment on average have shorter life expectations than those receiving treatment.
  6. "Undetected" and "uncorrelated" do not mean "new"/"old". The claim that HIV virus is old has absolutely no grounds. For example, atypical pneumonia (SARS) and avian flu are viruses new to humans; they migrated from other species, but they ARE new to humans, as humans didn't have these diseases before. Thus, HIV could have easily migrated from e.g. chimps to humans, and thus may be a new disease/virus.
  7. This one is just untrue. Two of three classical (and of four modern) postulates are undoubtedly proven. Two more (out of four) were not directly proven because of ethical restrictions (noone would be allowed to infect a healthy human with HIV), but they were proved in the course of lab accidents, when people were infected with HIV accidentally, and later developed AIDS. About 10-20%: absolutely with no proof, just words here (no source and date). On "dormant": nobody really knows how "dormant" it is. About chimpanzees: also b*s*t, IMO.
  8. Why not? There is specificity of transfer: via blood only. As for the "male AIDS": there is a known difference in diseases resistance between male and female (e.g. on chromosomal level: double-X is healthier and more resistant than X-Y). On doctors with AIDS: they might have some close inter-relations with their AIDS patients :)
  9. There are different strains (sub-species) of HIV. Populations also differ genetically. This is more than sufficient to explain any (really, ANY) differeces in statistical data. Also: there are no known cases when AIDS (using official AIDS definition) was caused not by HIV, but some other reason/agent. 10-20 times: proof that nutrition is NOT related. Graves: people live with AIDS for long, and are not buried separately from non-AIDS deaths. And life span is quite short in Africa.
  10. No proofs presented here. See note on terminology at the top.
  

Finally:
- autoimmune: might be true, but needs proofs, which are not present ATM
- AZT for babies: real bad, wonder if this really happens.]]> en-us Bogdan T Gallery 2 RSS Module, version 1.1.8 Fri, 18 May 2012 03:57:58 +0300 10080 http://gallery.bogdan.org.ua/d/9274-11/AIDS-dissidents-denialists.jpg http://gallery.bogdan.org.ua/v/Misc/Conspiracy-Theory/AIDS-dissidents-denialists.flv.html