Frontiers in Public Health publishes summary of paradigm dissent in literature by Patricia Goodson of Texas A&M
Review for public health professionals outlines the multitude of reasons for doubting paradigm, need for debate
Will editors or publisher of Swiss journal in Nature stable surrender when attacked by HIV-AIDS partisans, as with Medical Hypothesis?
A thorough review of the state of dissent in HIV-AIDS, it was published by a respectable public health journal and authored by member of the Department of Health & Kinesiology at Texas A&M, one Patricia Goodson.
If Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent by Patricia Goodson, Department of Health & Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA is not repressed by being withdrawn after the predictable political counter attack, we’d say the article has the potential to be a game changer in the hitherto stifled debate.
What the article says
Professor Goodson has done a fine job of examining the thirty year history of the logic and the politics of the discussion, in which dissenters even at the highest academic journal level have waged an uphill battle against the ruthless efforts of paradigm partisans among scientists established in the field to fend off and deny any criticism or review of their fond belief.
Goodson’s review appends 96 references, the first being Nobelist Kary Mullis’s striking statement, in his introduction to Peter Duesberg’s ‘Inventing the AIDS Virus’ (Regnery, 1996), that
(Photo right: Will the ship of fools, the Titanic HIV-AIDS cruise liner, meet the Goodson iceberg and sink within hours? Probably not.)
“the HIV-AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.”
That forthright quotation by Mullis is in effect Goodson’s opening shot across the bows of the great cruise ship ‘SS HIV-AIDS’, as that gigantic vessel continues its so far unarrested world tour. For thirty years without effective opposition it has gathered unprecedented public and private funds for its mission of medicating the human race with noxious drugs that can do grievous and sometimes fatal harm and no good at all, according to HIV-AIDS dissenters, whose case is gone through in four major aspects in Goodson’s paper:
I organize the challenges put forth by unorthodox scholars into four categories of data that support the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: (1) retroviral molecular markers (2) transmission electron microscopy (EM) images of retroviral particles; (3) efficacy of anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs; and (4) epidemiological data [7,8]
In other words, claims that the tests are invalid, actual HIV particles have never been seen, the drugs are ineffective and dangerous, and the transmission of the disease has never taken place. As anyone familiar with the problem knows, all these claims, shocking as they may be to the New York Times reader uninstructed in the issue, are true, in that this is what the evidence states, and there has never been any proven valid counter evidence or argument offered by the paradigm partisans in the literature. Indeed, there is still no paper to reference demonstrating that HIV is the cause of HIV-AIDS, which remains merely a conjecture based on a correlation.
(Photo left): Nobel prize winning scientist Kary Mullis joins with distinguished cancer scientist Peter Duesberg in condemning the HIV paradigm as a gigantic error and says that AIDS is clearly a behavioral rather than a transmissible disease in the West.
The paper is admirably complete, including every major flaw in the paradigm claimed by critics, though not all of them agree as to which is important or valid. To reach her paper’s conclusion, Goodson surveys a raft of objections to the HIV-AIDS core notion from every direction, many of which may be new to many readers who have previously looked at the problem long enough to know which side must be correct.
Among the many stones she turns to reveal the wriggling population of nonsensical inconsistencies and foolishness alleged by the critics are the following:
1) The antibodies revealed by tests would suggest that ‘the immune system has controlled the invading agents” in any other context than HIV-AIDS theory.
2) The tests used to confirm exposure to HIV (the ELISA and Western blot) react positively to more than sixty factors other than HIV antibodies, including flu and flu vaccinations, second and later pregnancies, tetanus vaccination, and the malaria widespread in Africa, a claim supported by “scientifcally valid evidence published in reputable peer reviewed journals” such as Lancet, JAMA, AIDS, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Canadian Medical Association Journal.
3) The Western blot has no standardized criteria for a positive result and one can change from positive to negative by flying from one country to another (eg a test reaction to p41, p32 and p24 would be considered positive in Africa, but not in Britain).
A global can of worms opened
Goodson thus notes the flaws alleged by dissenters in each category. But what’s novel about this new review of HIV dissent, apart from its being published at all in a world where virulent attacks on any dissent from HIV paradigm supporters are notorious, is that it concludes that it is indeed politics which has repressed the contrary view in the field, not that the arguments and evidence to doubt the validity of HIV as the cause of AIDS are prima facie wrong.
In other words, that the critics have demonstrated to her satisfaction that there are indeed very good scientific reasons to believe that HIV is not the cause of AIDS’ serious and potentially fatal immune deficiency, and that current health policy should be reviewed in this light. It should not be left alone as none of our business, or not the business of health professionals, to investigate and put right.
I would argue, nonetheless, that the debate between orthodox and unorthodox scientists comprises much more than an intellectual pursuit or a scientific skirmish: it is a matter of life-and-death. It is a matter of justice. Millions of lives, worldwide, have been and will be significantly affected by an HIV or AIDS diagnosis. If we – the public health workforce – lose sight of the social justice implications and the magnitude of the effect, we lose “the very purpose of our mission.” [3,90. p.690]
The matter is particularly critical now that the CDC wishes to test all comers:
“A pressing concern for public health is the move or push toward a) HIV screening for “patients in all health-care settings” (with opt-out screening)  and b) placing persons-at-risk (even if not yet infected with HIV), on retroviral medication as a form of prophylaxis (see discussion about PrEP, above) (92). If in 1986 the CDC recommended voluntary testing for people in high-risk groups, in 2013 the US Preventive Services Task Force “gave routine HIV screening of all adolescents and adults, ages 15-65, an ‘A’ rating” ([93. p.1]). The recently approved Affordable Care Act “requires or incentivizes preventive services rated ‘A’ or ‘B’ at no cost to patients” (, p.1). Thus, routine screening of every adolescent and adult in all populations in, now, the goal [91,94].
If, to this goal we juxtapose the problems with the HIV tests, with the definition(s) of AIDS, and with the toxicity of the ARVs currently prescribed, we begin to understand the potential for harm inherent in them. Put blatantly: these recommendation can be harmful or iatrogenic .
A dangerous conclusion
Goodson concludes that it is “vital that public health professionals attend to the debate and embark in a questioning of their own.”
Since this is precisely what the supporters of HIV/AIDS have always feared – that competent professional outsiders should review their essentially crackpot theory and denounce it – it seems unlikely they will let this pass without mounting an immediate counter attack to undermine its credibility, and persuade the publication to withdraw it.
Reportedly such an effort is already underway, in effect once again demonstrating that there are no good counterarguments to those of the dissenters, and that HIV defenders need politics to evade the debunking of their infatuation.
Politics: Will this publication survive?
The first target, we can predict, of the defenders of the HIV faith will be Patricia Goodson herself. We wonder if she is prepared for the onslaught, since she apparently spends her professional life among colleagues who are likely more idealistically motivated that the promoters of the heavily funded but so far failed paradigm HIV (it has failed to produce a proof of cause, or a cure, or a vaccine, in thirty years).
We have in mind John P. Moore Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, Microbiology and Immunology, Weill Cornell Medical College, where he has worked since 2000 on research well funded by the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases on the nature and properties of HIV, particularly when applied to the private parts of macaques.
Moore is well known in the field for his notorious Op-Ed piece in the New York Times deploring dissenters in HIV-AIDS science as being “dangerous” to the community because they might discourage the taking of noxious anti-HIV drugs. He is also notorious for making personal attacks on dissenters, most effectively by writing to their employers to urge them to relieve the HIV doubters of their jobs or posts.
Another prominent deplorer of dissent in any form is Mark Wainberg, Director of the McGill University AIDS Centre and Professor of Medicine and of Microbiology at McGill University in Montreal. In one fit of zeal he has called for the imprisonment of Peter Duesberg and any other prominent dissenter.
There are a host of lesser folks who can be counted upon to come eagerly to the fray in support of the status quo, though without scientific credentials even of the suspect HIV expertise kind. We are thinking of some who have unsuccessfully though energetically trolled this site in earlier years.(Photo left: Will Patricia Goodson of Texas A&M’s department of Health & Kinesiology survive the anticipated attacks behind her back of the notoriously ungentlemanly defenders of the HIV faith, now she has published a very thorough review of the history and state of HIV-AIDS dissent in a respectable journal, albeit thus far only on line? We hope so, for the sake of science, free speech and debate, and the cancellation of harmful HIV-AIDS policy before more lives are ruined by this unjustifiable and very dangerous scientific notion.
An arrow at the castle of denial
So will the reputation of Goodson survive, along with her publication?
According to the website apart from being a professor of public health she is also a teacher of writing, which explains why her document is well written enough for laymen to understand it. Even Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton will be able to read through it and finally realize what’s up; not that that would make any difference to his public posture.
Which is the problem. Over thirty years this paradigm, which any reasonable person can see from her review is undoubtedly the most ill founded, wretched embarrassment to science in history, has become part of the culture, and woven into countless lives, not just of the patients but of all the scientists, bureaucrats, NGO idealists, doctors, nurses and other fellow travelers, professional or lay, engaged in any career or job involved in the spending of the hundreds of billions of dollars commanded by it.
To take one example, what precisely is a man and scientist such as John P. Moore to do with the realization that his entire life in science has been conducted on a false premise, and the whole string of grants he has received have been applied to studying a chimera? Even if there is something else his expertise can be turned to, which is questionable, what about the reputation he will lose, the standing in the community which will vanish, like fog in the sun?
The scientific truth is that HIV-AIDS is a paradigm with a hollow center, and that truth is like a trap door under the feet of all concerned, one which they have devoted their lives to nailing shut, lest it open and drop them into the void of calumny and ostracism, if not investigation and hearings on the topic of whether they knowingly misled the public and incurred the waste of billions in taxpayer funds and the blight and loss of hundreds of thousands of human lives.
They will fight to the death to prevent this trap door opening, and they have done so to date. They are not going to change now.