Yes We Did– Now What?

February 8, 2009

The deadly for-profit industry that is so called HIV-AIDS

Filed under: a life worth living,AIDS,be the change,children,health care,HIV,oppression — kimwilsonowen @ 5:10 am

Please, please Mr. President. Please look deeply into the issues surrounding AIDS. Please check out the links below, from the Rethinking AIDS facebook page. We don’t have an AIDS epidemic. AIDS behaves like no credible epidemic. We have an epidemic of AIDS testing– no two tests give the same result, so many normal conditions give false positives that will ruin a person’s life in the blink of an eye– and a targeting of marginalized groups such as African Americans and gays.

Then bring the real scientists and clear communicators involved in the rethinking movement to Washington for a hearing– David Crowe, Peter Duesberg, Kary Mullis inventor of the PCR (DNA test)  technology used to detect HIV who says HIMSELF that it cannot work, David Rasnick, all of those whose loved ones died or babies who were brain damaged or whose mothers died or who could not breastfeed because of the incredibly poor science surrounding our current ‘duh, everybody knows what causes AIDS’ mindset, dangerous AIDS drugs being pushed at tremendous profit to drug companies, and the carelessness of doctors and scientists who care not one whit about ‘the kind of people who get AIDS’–  poor, ethnic, gay, ‘promiscuous’– please Mr. President. Just give it a solid hearing. You could save so many lives. If you aren’t convinced, then at least fund research by both sides, not just the Gallo/CDC side, to finally prove, SCIENTIFICALLY, one way or the other. Please.

Join the cause

“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agreeing over something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. ” -Michael Chrichton
Start with the documentaries, then move on to the websites to read scientific studies for yourself.
The truth about HIV testing:

Can you imagine receiving a fatal diagnosis without being told the diagnosis is based on an unproven idea and an uncertain test?
Being instructed to take powerful, experimental drugs without being told these drugs compromise health, destroy or suppress functions necessary for life, and were approved for use without adequate testing?
Being informed that you have, or should expect, deadly illnesses without being told that these same illnesses are not considered fatal when they occur in “normal” people?

For anyone who tests HIV positive, getting all the facts is a matter of life and death. The important decisions a person makes should be based on thorough, verifiable data. All of us need and have the right to receive honest and complete information about HIV and AIDS. -Alive and Well
Rethinkers Challenge the Dogmatists
“The best evidence against the HIV hypothesis is that there is no evidence for it. In the vast scientific/medical literature, over 100,000 papers published on HIV/AIDS, we cannot find anywhere in this vast literature, the evidence that HIV causes AIDS, that AIDS is…contagious, or that it’s even sexual transmitted.

If this had been shown that HIV causes AIDS, we should know who these benefactors of humanity are by name, these would be candidates for the Nobel Prize. I challenge you to come up with the names of these individuals…”

-Dr. David Rasnick
Professor of Biology

“If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents…which demonstrate this fact… There is no such document.”
-Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)


What you will find in this group is something that no mainstream AIDS group possesses: A scientific basis for its assertions. Go ahead and search the other facebook groups, you will find a lot of things but nothing resembling hard scientific evidence.


Aids Inc., 2007

The Other Side of AIDS (2004)

The Cause of AIDS: Fact and Speculation(1994):


This is one possible theory
Dr. Peter Duesberg, Professor at Berkley, The Chemical Bases Various AIDS Epidemics, 2003
Questions of Scientific and Journalistic Responsibility
By Serge Lang, Yale Scientific Fall 1994
Visit these well referenced sites:

PLEASE NOTE: Try to reference your posts with citations of sites, or, preferably…

published peer-reviewed articles or papers

Contact Info


Recent News

Gallo’s Egg – A significant investigative report:

Now there is also a Rethinking AIDS page:

And a Rethinking AIDS cause:
Court rules HIV not proven to cause ‘AIDS’.
by Paul King Sunday, Jun. 22, 2003 at 12:28 AM


Fear of The Invisible by Janine Roberts

The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory
Henry H. Bauer
Bauer’s blog:

Probable Cause of early “AIDS”:

This paper has 8 pages of cited sources, written in 2003 by Dr. Peter Duesberg, Berkley and Dr. David Rasnick.

Updated September 26, 2006:

Correcting Gallo (the co-discoverer of “HTLV-III” [supposedly a 30-yr latency oncovirus], which was renamed HIV)

Includes 56 topics providing hundreds of references:

Free video clips and documentaries:



  1. Mr Kalichman, regarding your comment on my blog :

    Your blog is your forum, my blog is mine.

    However, public, in person debate could only do good. Acquaint yourself thoroughly with the resources cited in my post and then I invite you to debate AIDS rethinkers publicly and in person. If nothing else, additional information will benefit the public and they can make their own decisions.

    Many doctors and scientists are truly conscientious, caring people doing their best to heal and make the world a better place. But the system is broken.

    Abuses are not due to conscious desire to harm, but they are certainly due to wilful blindness in the name of not rocking the boat, keeping one’s career afloat, keeping grant money or donations or profits or political goodwill or the benefits of pushing pharmaceuticals or expensive treatments in cases like childbirth when less intervention, not more, is safer.

    The system is broken and professionals are almost forced to operate this way or be subject to uninformed commentary like yours and loss of career and credibility if they dare to speak up as their ethics demand.

    I will, however, reply privately to your comments. You have a right to your opinions but I’d like to hear you tell me in person the factual or scientifically documented bases for them.

    If you choose to comb through the resources cited in the post and tell me honestly and factually, one assertion at a time, where you find fault and where you find truth in the arguments therein, I’ll be glad to open the debate.

    For now:

    Different HIV tests give differing results. Many normal conditions, such as pregnancy or having had malaria or had ones immunities suppressed by some other conditioin or behavior can cause false positives that ruin lives for NOTHING. We don’t have an epidemic of AIDS. We have an epidemic of inaccurate testing.

    ” 1. To this day, there is no HIV test that actually looks for or finds HIV itself.
    2. Results of all “HIV” tests are interpreted based on the country, the survey information you give and the lab where you were tested.
    3. In Africa, AIDS has a completely different definition that does not require an HIV test, called the Bangui Definition.”

    Michael Crichton: I suggest you read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S Kuhn.
    Christine Maggiore: You don’t get HIV tested, or you’re lucky enough to test negative, and you just have pneumonia. You get HIV tested and get a positive from the irretrievably flawed testing methods and you have pneumonia and suddenly you have AIDS.
    David Rasnick– not sure what you’re talking about.
    Kary Mullis: The guy whose work has brought many guilty to justice and saved many innocent from undeserved prison sentences has been abducted by aliens? Should we just throw all those court cases out and start over?
    David Crowe is real, and it is your loss not to know him. He’s a powerful force for sanity in medical, health and wellness practices. If you are ever big enough to debate in public and not just on a blog, we’ll bring him in. I advise you read his work first, though, so you’ll be prepared and have some chance not to have your ass handed to you– extremely courteously of course– by this decent, kind, brilliant person.
    Henry Baurer: Again– If you choose to comb through the resources cited in the post and tell me honestly and factually, one assertion at a time, where you find fault and where you find truth in the arguments therein, I’ll be glad to open the debate.


    Now what?

    Comment by kimwilsonowen — February 8, 2009 @ 6:51 pm

  2. Hey Kim,
    So good to see this post. Also glad to see you put Seth “One Man Show” Kalichman in his place!
    The sheer volume of citations your provide here is an incredible testimony to the insanity of the AIDS conspiracy/theory/call-it-what-you-will.
    If that list doesn’t offer enough reading material, I share my own personal experience of getting a “positive” test result more than ten years ago entitled “I survived AIDS without drugs”, for anyone interested in reading about it here.

    Comment by Jonathan — February 9, 2009 @ 1:55 am

  3. Thanks for the kind words! I don’t provide the links– these are from the Rethink Aids facebook page. If you’re on facebook you can hop on and join. I can’t take any credit. I will be reading your story. Thanks so much.

    My thing is, if I’m wrong, prove it. Wouldn’t it be of benefit to all concerned if once and for all we hammered out the points of contention, got them down to concise key points, and submitted them to be proven right or wrong, once and for all, by actual scientific method and true epidemiological principles?

    Mr. Kalichman is not a medical doctor or a true scientist in the ‘hard science’ sense of the word as are many in the RA movement. He has no credibility. He is hiding behind his blog, his book and his emotional and personal attacks.

    If he truly has anything to offer and cares about more than the negative pleasure of lobbing manure, he will come to the table and talk it over publicly, respectfully and FACTUALLY.

    I continue to be amazed at how people love the drama of their causes but never simply sit down to talk FACTS and comb through to find the real factual differences. If people like Kalichman had the (insert name of gender specific reproductive apparatus here) to do that in public and in person, both sides having factual documentation in hand for all to pass around and vet for true scientific process and research principles, maybe we could get somewhere.

    Thanks! All the best!

    Comment by kimwilsonowen — February 9, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

  4. Kim,

    This is an excellent, sober site. A wealth of important information for those marginalized by the brutal (and unreliable) “HIV diaganosis”

    My thoughts — (1) don’t take these damn tests and (2) if you do, scrutinize all advice by your doctors, get second opinions, and do your own research.

    The tests are woefully unreliable, the drugs are highly toxic.

    Comment by Aqua Man — February 9, 2009 @ 6:28 pm

  5. Thanks so much AM. Your kind words mean so much. You know the collection of resources comes from the Rethink AIDS facebook group, not from me. I can’t take credit. You are so right. Each person must learn all he or she can before agreeing to any sort of treatment or intervention. I agree– we don’t have an epidemic of AIDS. We have an epidemic of testing with flawed tests and cramming deadly drugs that will kill long before any virus or complication does, down the throats of those unlucky enough to test positive. It is especially horrifying to me to think of all the pregnant women dutifully getting tested because they want to have a healthy pregnancy– when pregnancy suppresses immunities and causes false positives! And two lives are then ruined, if not lost. Liver failure, fetal brain damage, denied the right to breastfeed when that is what babies need most and so called transmission rates via breast feeding are very low. It makes me sick. The Other Side of Aids is what opened my eyes, but I highly recommend Dr. Peter Duesberg’s book for serious factual documentation. If anyone has problems with Dr. Duesberg’s findings, they will have to show me factual scientific documentation before I can give them any hearing whatsoever.

    Comment by kimwilsonowen — February 10, 2009 @ 3:04 am

  6. I have a problem with Duesberg’s refusal to address the issues with HIV testing. With his refusal to openly discuss the isolation issue with the Perth Group. I think that costs the “dissident movement” a lot. Because Duesberg is also so influential, many people don’t even inform themselves about what the Perth Group says if they believe that they’ve discovered a gap in Duesberg’s arguments. Here’s a discussion I’m currently having with a “skeptic”:

    Other than that, if you want to add anything to that list of links at the Facebook group, just express it on the group wall, or send one of the group admins (me for example) a message. I’m glad it helps.

    Comment by Sadun Kal — February 12, 2009 @ 11:23 am

  7. “If anyone has problems with Dr. Duesberg’s findings, they will have to show me factual scientific documentation before I can give them any hearing whatsoever.”

    OK, let’s discuss how Duesberg deals with this paper, showing the dramatic impact of antiretroviral therapy on mortality:

    Here is Duesberg’s attempt to explain away the findings:

    “the evidence for “declining morbidity and mortality” is only based on uncontrolled survey studies that investigated how long HIV-positive, clinically healthy subjects, but mostly from AIDS risk groups, survived on various anti-HIV drugs. The largest and most influential of these surveys was conducted by Palella et al (1998) who investigated in 1998 1255 anti-HIV drug-treated “patients, each of which had at least one CD4+ count below 100” from nine clinics in the US. However, all of these “patients” were “nonhospitalized”, AIDS-free subjects. “Patients with a diagnosis of cytomegalovirus retinitis or M. aviarum (sic) complex disease before study entry or during the first 30 days of follow-up and patients with active P. carinii pneumonia at the beginning of follow-up were excluded.” A similar survey investigated in 2001 1219 anti-HIV drug-treated Canadian HIV-positives with less than 200 CD4+ cells, of which 87% were AIDS-free (Hogg et al 2001). Neither of these studies mentions drug-free controls. On this basis the Palella-study found that the mortality of initially asymptomatic, HIV-positive people, which are treated with new anti-HIV drug cocktails, is 8.8% (“8.8 per 100 person-years”) and the Hogg-study found it is 6.7%.”

    For the sake of completeness, here’s the link to the Hogg study:

    Let’s start with a couple of simple questions:

    1. Is Duesberg telling the truth when he says that people with CMV, MAC, or active PCP were excluded from the Palella study? Is his quote from the Palella paper accurate? (this is fundamental to Duesberg’s claim that these studies involve “clinically healthy” “AIDS-free” individuals.)

    2. Is it true that “Neither of these studies mentions drug-free controls.”?

    Comment by BD — February 14, 2009 @ 6:26 pm

  8. Dear BD, as promised I will take seriously your contentions and read carefully through the resources and information you provided and get back to you. Many thanks for being one of the few to engage factual debate rather than simply personally defame those you disagree with.

    Comment by kimwilsonowen — February 18, 2009 @ 1:11 pm

  9. Sadun, thanks so much for being willing to share factual debate. That is so important in this environment of hysteria and conspiracy. I will give your link serious attention and get back to you. As a working parent it may take a bit of time but I truly appreciate your thoughts and will read through them thoroughly.


    Comment by kimwilsonowen — February 18, 2009 @ 1:13 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: