The followers of the HIV=AIDS theory have been remarkably quiet here
recently.  Perhaps they've realised they're on the losing side and
have been persuaded they're wrong.

Maybe that's a small battle won for those of us labeled "denialists."
But what's is a 'denialist,' anyway?  It's a made-up word, created by
those who follow a made-up theory, to described those who don't agree
that HIV=AIDS.

Following this logic we're all 'denialists.'  Your favourite colour
isn't green?  You're a green denialist.  Your favourite TV programme
isn't Star Trek?  You're a Star trek denialist.  You don't like cats?
Well, you get the picture.  What's a 'denialist?'  It's simply someone
who doesn't agree with your viewpoint.

Why do followers of the HIV=AIDS theory refer to those who disagree
with them as "denialists?"  It's done to evoke memories of Holocaust
denial: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial>.

The theory of HIV is built on fear.  HIV makes people fearful of
having sex.  And for those who push through that fear there's another
one: the fear of having HIV.  And for those diagnosed with HIV there's
the fear of the problems associated with the 'virus.'  This is one of
the reasons I've often referred to HIV as a religion.  With religion
and HIV fear and misinformation is used to control people, and they're
both followed without any regard for logic or the need for evidence.

The followers of the HIV=AIDS 'religion' have no evidence that HIV
exists, and even less that such a virus could lead to the collapse of
the human immune system.  But they want to silence anyone who doesn't
follow their beliefs.  Apparently, the publication of books
questioning their faith is the next evil item on their hit list.

<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070704.wcommentt0704/BNStor
y/National/home>:
"People who argue that HIV does not cause AIDS have formed clubs,
published newsletters and freely disseminated terribly harmful
information on this subject through the Internet and other widely
available channels. Attempts to shut down these sites or to prevent
the dissemination of denialist literature are routinely dismissed on
the grounds that dissenters have a right to express their views and
that the public interest is better served by the defence of freedom of
expression.

The latter sentiment appears in a letter to us — researchers on the
front lines of the global AIDS crisis — from the provost and
vice-president of a well-known U.S. university, after we complained
that one of his faculty members had written a book based on an
HIV-AIDS denialist position. The university should have shown
leadership on the issue and dismissed the faculty member from her
position, rather than hiding under the cloak of academic freedom."

And

"HIV denialism is lethal. It is responsible for the infections of at
least several hundreds of thousands more people around the world than
would have otherwise been infected and died."

So, we now have another method of HIV 'transmission.'  That of
"denialism."

And

"Our lawmakers need to enact legislation to put appropriate limits on
such irresponsible expression and to counter the ongoing damage
perpetrated by denialists."

Under all the threats and extreme language we finally discover what
the followers of HIV=AIDS want.  They want a law to outlaw opposition
to them.  They want a law that will make it illegal to disagree with
them.  They want to take away freedom of speech and freedom to express
views and opinions that don't agree with theirs.

What sort of science is HIV=AIDS based on?  The science of fear,
intimidation, and silencing anyone who doesn't agree with you.