UPDATE: HIV/AIDS Theory is Based on Fraud?[ Prepared for Facebook groups, aimed towards skeptics. Facebook users please go here:
http://www.new.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=23479859352&topic=4735 ]

There was also a discussion about this at the Facebook page of "Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science" for a while, which contains more info and emotions. Click here to view it.

Hello Dear Skeptics,

I question orthodox AIDS.
This is a little long and I broke it in 3 parts to not to scare you off.

Part 1
-------

Did you know that there are a lot of scientists out there, who say that HIV can't be the cause of AIDS? I didn't, until a few months ago... And I found it confusing that I've never heard about such thing before. Apparently the reason was that they're having a really hard time getting their voices heard. And then I was curious why that might be the case...

Later, what convinced me to look really deeper was to witness how the orthodox medicine always avoided scientific confrontation with these people. Maybe it's because the subject is so sensitive, but what I observed was a lack of professional, scientific debate and an excess of emotions and ad hominem attacks. The rethinkers are treated by the mainstream scientists as the evil enemies instead of fellow scientists looking for answers.

Now I thought this is a good chance for all the skeptics in the world to demonstrate some real skepticism and help each other find out the mysterious truth behind all this. I'll expose you only to some rethinker information. I believe that's fair considering that most of us were only exposed to the mainstream views.

I recommend starting with videos, that way you can inform yourself more effortlessly. For example "The Other Side of AIDS" is a nice documentary as an introduction:

Official Website

(In fact, you can stop reading the rest of this text and watch it -illegally- right now!)

Video: THE OTHER SIDE OF AIDS

Part 2
-------

But if you're impatient, here's a recent investigation report by a retired LAPD police officer for a fast start:
http://www.californiaconservative.org/academia/hiv-aids-gallos-egg

Quote from the investigation report:

"...I have never written about anything more important. This story changed my life, and if you have the time and patience to understand what I have written, it may change yours as well..."

Take your time, don't rush it. There's a lot to learn if you're new to this debate. After all it started more than 20 years ago. I've been looking into this since ca. 5 months now and I still don't know many things. Here's a plenty of information for the curious minds:
http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/List_of_dissident_websites

For example you can read how an insider became a rethinker here:
http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Document:Why_I_Quit_HIV
http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Document:Why_I_Quit_HIV:_The_Aftermath

Part 3
-------

I'd like to remind you something before I leave you with the information above. I'm worried about the current condition of modern skepticism. The below excerpt should help you understand my concerns:

"...If we think in terms of the general public and the influence of the media, we may conclude that a healthy dose of reflective skepticism is just what is required to counteract what Richard Dawkins calls “the current epidemic of paranormal propaganda.” Other contemporary scientists, however, thinking primarily of the attitudes of practicing scientists, believe that the scales are skewed very much in favor of negative criticism when it comes to unorthodox views or extraordinary claims which appear to threaten well-established scientific beliefs, and they argue for a greater degree of receptivity. Brian Josephson, for example, argues that the claims of “heretical scientists” are dismissed as “nonsense or impossible, generally without any serious attempt to look at the evidence” (Josephson, 1994). The essence of his objection is not that the unorthodox claims he mentions are actually credible, but that their merits have not been seriously assessed in a genuine scientific inquiry. Josephson is himself somewhat skeptical, but he refuses to say a priori that something cannot be the case. He fears that various “defence mechanisms” spring into action to defend the “purity” of science, and that claim, if true, would clearly undermine the kind of receptiveness which calls for an impartial assessment of an unorthodox claim in the light of evidence.

A fine contemporary statement embodying the attitude involved in critical receptiveness and acknowledging the problem of satisfying both dimensions is found in the writings of the late Carl Sagan who warned against the danger of skeptical criticism degenerating into a debunking of everything new and different: “....what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas....But if you are able to exercise only one of these modes, which ever one it is, you’re in deep trouble” (Sagan 1987, 41-2). Sagan thought of these needs as involving a seemingly self-contradictory mix of attitudes, but somehow justice had to be done to both aspects. Such conflicting demands seem likely to call for a “tolerance for ambiguity” in the individual if a finely-tuned critical receptiveness is not to collapse into a one-sided emphasis on one aspect to the exclusion of the other. Sagan’s perceptive comments offer some encouragement that Russell’s insights have filtered through to our own day to help illuminate the complex nature of the inquiring spirit and skeptical outlook. "

Source: http://www.williamhare.org/assets/hare_receptiveness_russell.pdf

Here's even an example for what I'm talking about:
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/Challenges/Crowe-Scalise-et-al.html

Notice that for some reason(Milgram?) the burden of proof never lied on the inventors of HIV/AIDS hypothesis. They announced HIV=AIDS in a press conference, the claims didn't even go through a proper peer reviewing process. So now it shouldn't be about demanding proof that 'HIV doesn't cause AIDS', it's about demanding proof that 'HIV causes AIDS' .

I think you can see where the majority of the modern "skeptics" fail dramatically: We never question the mainstream scientific authorities.

In short, don't approach this as a conspiracy theory to debunk, see it as an oppurtunity to learn something revolutionary new or as a chance to strengthen your confidence in what you already knew to be true. Don't be just skeptical about the paranormal, be skeptical about the seemingly normal, too. Science progresses through revolutions after all and this might be one of them.


Last Words
------------

In the end, what I would love to see is an objective, public, live debate about all this. Just one debate won't be enough probably, because if the rethinkers are right about everything then the problem lies a lot deeper than just HIV research. There should be a series of continuing debates. Even if there's no mass media attention to it, it should be made available for public viewing, simply via websites like YouTube for example. Can the Skeptics Society possibly arrange something like that?

P.S. Please try to ressist the urge to attack me if the above text bothers you, especially if you didn't take the time to examine the information I posted. If you were never objectively exposed to the "other side" before, I recommend investing minimum 15 hours into research before you convince yourself that you've heard enough. Thanks for your understanding and good luck with your research!

And I also kindly ask the admins to send an update to the members about this important mystery waiting to be solved, so that they all get a chance to hear about it. Thank you.

UPDATE: The 15 hours research I suggested should of course consist of informing yourselves from the rethinker/denialist/dissident sources, and not from mainstream. You can do that also but it doesn't count for the 15 hours... Just wanted to clarify that... :)

UPDATE: This addition aims at giving you reasons to care more about this topic: