There is life with HIV

Negationism and Denial of AIDS And Negationism of AIDS A continuing threat?

Negationism of science, a thing of the Middle Ages, persists! Are they ill-informed people? Or malicious? Only God, and the devil, you know, right?

The current culture of denial of science extends to HIV as it always has, initially with other idiots, such as Pete Duesberg (Dushberg?)

Negacionismo e Negação da AIDS
For many, science is the same as the one in the photo! Only not!

AIDS Negationism and Denial they have always been a problem, such as, for example, a site that displayed several negative sites and used the name of mine to mark itself scientifically against. The process paid off, and if they exist, I don't care anymore!

Adespite the almost daily advances in the sciences of HIV, the shadow of AIDS denial (of lies, I would say) is still great, casting doubts and distraction among those who need, many, many times more care.

While the main dissenting voices (Peter Duesberg, Celia Farber) may no longer be able to grasp the media spotlight they had in the 1980s and 90s - when much less was known about HIV and fear, it provided a ready platform for those who they were on the sidelines of legitimate science - their messages and methods still have an impact today.


Advancing this research, I found important information on Wikipedia, and I put it here, highlighted:

The negation of AIDS is the refusal to recognize that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), despite conclusive evidence.

Some of its proponents reject the existence of HIV, while others accept that HIV exists, but argue that it is a harmless transient virus and not the cause of AIDS. 

While recognizing AIDS as a real disease, they attribute it to some combination of sexual behavior, recreational drugs, malnutrition, poor sanitation, hemophilia or the effects of drugs used to treat HIV infection (antiretrovirals).

The scientific consensus is that the evidence showing that HIV is the cause of AIDS is conclusive and that HIV / AIDS denial claims are pseudo based on conspiracy theories, deficient reasoning and misrepresentation of scientific data, mainly the outdated ones, used as a basis for reasoning without foundations.

With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, the AIDS denialist is now targeting less scientifically sophisticated audiences and broadcast mainly on the Internet.

The text says more about this and contradicts this information from Wikipedia.

Despite its lack of scientific acceptance, the negativity of AIDS had a significant political impact, especially in South Africa under the chairmanship of Thabo Mbeki. Read this speech by Nelson Mandela, please.

Scientists and doctors warned of the human cost of AIDS denialism, which discourages HIV-positive people from using proven treatments.


Public health researchers attributed 330.000 to 340.000 AIDS-related deaths, with 171.000 other HIV infections and 35.000 HIV infections in babies, to the South African government's long-standing embrace of AIDS denialism. 

The interruption of the use of antiretroviral treatments is also a major global concern, as it potentially increases the probability of the emergence of strains of the virus resistant to antiretroviral drugs.

Source HIV / AIDS Denialism - Wikipedia - Link at the end of the article



Discarding your ideas as medical “quackery” or remnants of a less enlightened past minimizes the effect that denial has on the public's perception of HIV, as well as the unexpressed fears and emotions that fuel them.

In 2010, a survey of 343 adults diagnosed with HIV found that one in five participants believed there was no evidence that HIV caused AIDS. One in three believes that scientists are debating whether HIV causes AIDS (!!!).1   

These beliefs affected their adherence to treatments. Participants who believed that scientists are debating whether HIV causes AIDS were significantly less likely to take antiretroviral therapy. Those who took medications were less likely to take them regularly if they reported denial beliefs.

Where and when does AIDS denial and denial begin?


According to the Oxford Dictionary, a denialist is "a person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by most scientific or historical evidence".

Chris Hoofnagle, senior attorney at Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, extends the definition by stating:

This also defines negationism and AIDS Denial:

“Since legitimate dialogue is not a valid option for those who are interested in protecting prejudiced or irrational ideas from scientific facts, their only recourse is to use rhetorical tactics (verbal illusionism - I Claudio, I call Mentira and liars). “

Some rhetorical tactics identified by Tara C. Smith, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Iowa School of Public Health, and Dr. Steven Novella, Yale University School of Medicine, include:

  1. To portray the dominant science as intellectually compromised or driven by interests (for example, biased by “Drug money”).
  2. Selectively choose which authorities to believe and which to reject in order to structure a conspiracy argument or suggest that a proven science is being debated.
  3. Reducing the status of denied science to a deeply ingrained (often persecuted) faith, while characterizing scientific consensus as dogmatic and suppressive.
  4. “Putting anchors on the moving ship”, demanding more scientific evidence of than currently available and then insisting on new evidence when these requirements are met.

Vulnerable to denial and denial and AIDS denial or AIDS denial?


Meanwhile, members of the public who adopt beliefs based on negativity are often seen as vulnerable to misinformation or fraud, or lacking the education necessary to make an informed judgment. Research from the University of Connecticut seems to suggest otherwise.

Of internet users in the study who endorsed a specific AIDS denialist belief, scores of confidence and credibility were higher for one mainstream medical site (Tufts Medical School) than for two denialist sites were shown (Matthias Rath, Jonathan Campbell). 

This seems to indicate that the negative messages do not instigate personal belief so much, but validate the suspicions and doubts of those who do not want (or cannot) accept medical facts against their own best judgment. The negation and AIDS denial are punctuated by psychological factors / psychiatric.

According to a study by the CDC, only 44% of Americans diagnosed with HIV are linked to medical care.

Negacionismo da AIDSDisinformation about HIV - associated with fear of disclosure and lack of appropriate HIV care - is considered to be one of the main reasons why many choose to postpone treatment until the onset of symptomatic disease, the most serious complication of Negativity and AIDS denial or AIDS denial.

So while AIDS denial may seem like ancient history to some, its ability to confuse and upset remains as potent as ever.

Translated by Cláudio Souza from the original written by By James Myhre & Dennis Sifris, MD and Clinically reviewed  by a certified doctor 

Updated on February 15, 2021

Source of matter: AIDS Denialism: Ancient History or Ongoing Threat? HIV / AIDS Denialism at Wikepedia

Get updates right on your device for free

Have something to say? Say it!!! This blog, and the world, is much better with friends!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your feedback data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

Privacy & Cookies Policy