Letters to
Gay Today
AIDS Denial Isn't Realism
John Lauritsen covered the AIDS crisis for the New York Native as one of the "flacks," referred to in John Lauritsen's "AIDS Realism vs. the HIV Hypothesis," I'd like to thank Lauritsen for laying out in explicit, if unintentional, detail the true nature of the AIDS denialist arguments (and yes, the comparison to Holocaust deniers is indeed apt): A collection of unsupported speculation propped up by carefully selected snippets of data that simply omit anything the "dissidents" find inconvenient.
Lauritsen's claim that the media have censored the views of the denialists is laughable. Nightline did a whole show on the subject a few years ago. They've also gotten extensive coverage in, among other outlets, the London Sunday Times, Spin, numerous gay and lesbian publications and--strikingly--key organs of the right-wing, antigay movement in the U.S., including The American Spectator and the Heritage Foundation's Policy Review.
After all of this attention it's hard to see how the fact that few take their views seriously can be blamed on censorship. Maybe--just maybe--it's because, after carefully looking at all of the data, intelligent observers have concluded that mainstream science, whatever its flaws, pretty much got it right this time.
But the best advice I can give readers is: Don't take my word for it. Look up the references. Read the data--all of it, not just the narrow interpretations of those with an axe to grind--and judge for yourself.
Sincerely, Bruce Mirken
San Francisco
AIDS, Poppers & HIV Theories
I read John Lauritsen's article attacking the theory that HIV was the cause of AIDS. While I disagree with some of his ideas, most of them actually, I think you should be applauded for expanding the dialogue about AIDS.
I found many of Lauritsen's arguments intriguing. He does a damn good job of making his case strongly and convincingly. However, many modern-day "snake-oil salesmen" are plugging into this vital debate.
I found Lauritsen's assertion that AIDS in America was a different disease than AIDS in Africa "reasonable" and considered. Having been exposed, possibly, hundreds of times to American HIV as a "top" and never having been infected, I wonder why it is so easily transmitted from female to male in Africa..
Related Stories from the GayToday Archive:
AIDS Realism Versus the HIV Hypothesis
Answering the AIDS Denialists: CD4 (T-Cell) Counts, and Viral Load
A Rose by Any Other Name…
Related Sites:
Virus Myth
However, he totally loses “credibility” when he drags out his old/ancient/never-documented assertion that “poppers=death”. I read his book on that subject and the research simply showed that “if someone was HIV positive, the use of poppers did seem to increase the possibility of their contracting Karposi Sarcoma.”
If “poppers really did equal death” I'd be long dead by now. Once, after having a pleasant dinner with John Lauritsen, I actually indulged myself by “toasting him” with a hit of Rush as he looked on in wide-eyed wonder and/or horror.
I think the “questions” raised by Lauritsen and others are commendable. He does a great job pointing out how “money flows” behind certain ideas and excludes others. Even if he is totally in error, his criticisms force the “consensus advoca//gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/penpoints/052900pp.htm
