What is an AIDS dissident?

The term AIDS dissident is a broad catch-all term for those of us who doubt, or disbelieve the conventional (orthodox) explanation for the condition of immune dysfunction commonly called “AIDS”.  Dissident is a self-assigned label, making an absolute definition nearly impossible.

There is a great deal of variety, even disagreement among those who call themselves dissidents.  Some do not believe there is sufficient scientific evidence for the existence of a retrovirus called HIV.  Others question that such a virus is capable of causing the immune deficiency syndrome first identified in gay men in 1981.

As the author of the website whatisaids.com puts it:

“…anyone who, through investigation or life experience has come to the conclusion that there are problems with the relationship between HIV and AIDS can consider themselves a “dissident.”

According to the AIDS Wiki:

“An AIDS dissident is an individual who denies the veracity of, challenges, or questions, in some way, the prevailing scientific consensus that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the sole and sufficient cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).”

Another way of answer this question would be “anyone who is not an AIDS apologist”.

[see: “What is an AIDS apologist?” below]


What is an AIDS apologist?

Apologist, mainstream, orthodox… all of these terms are labels referring to those who accept the most commonly held view that a retrovirus discovered by Robert Gallo (or Luc Montagnier) called the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) (or LAV, or HTLV III) is the sole and sufficient cause of the condition of immune collapse originally call Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID) syndrome, later renamed Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). AIDS apologists also insist that early intervention with a lifetime course of pharmaceutical anti-retrovirals (ARVs) is essential.Here is one definition of an AIDS Apologist from an AIDS apologist website:

“AIDS apologists (AKA AIDS realists) are those who know it is a fact that HIV leads to AIDS (proven by science, so much scientific proof) and we are defending the scientifically known fact that viral pathogenesis and progression of ‘HIV to AIDS’  causes  the eventual need for combination therapies to prolong life.”


Why would anyone question or doubt the overwhelming evidence that HIV exists and causes AIDS?

The “evidence” for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis is far from overwhelming.  In fact, some AIDS dissidents would argue that the evidence is non-existent.

The strength of a scientific hypothesis is measured by its ability to make and fulfill predictions. In this regard the HIV=AIDS hypothesis has been a failure.

The dire warnings of a heterosexual epidemic were unfounded, the search for a vaccine has come up short time and again, and researchers still disagree on fundamental issues, such as how HIV is thought to cause AIDS.

All this despite more than a quarter century of study and billions of dollars spent in the endeavor.


Can people who test positive for the “HIV” antibodies survive without taking the anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs?

Many so-called “HIV-positives” are living well without the AIDS drugs, and not just the so-called “elite controllers”.There are several testimonials from such people at the websites livingwithouthivdrugs.com and wearelivingproof.org.


I just tested “positive” and my doctor says I won’t live long unless I take the drugs. What should I do?

It is beyond the scope of this site to offer personalized medical and health diagnoses or to prescribe treatments.  There are things anyone can do to reduce the burden of illness and to improve their health.

First, read the FAQs here about the so-called HIV tests.  It is possible that you have had a cross-reaction and there is absolutely nothing wrong with you, or at least nothing that the current AIDS treatments can help.

There may be some reasons to suspect that a positive test result is an indication of one or more health problems affecting your immune system.  Most allopathic (Western) doctors will not look beyond the HIV=AIDS hypothesis to treat the underlying cause.  You may be better served by an alternative care provider, such a naturopath or TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) doctor.

Learn about your options.  Visit the many AIDS dissident websites and do your research.  Check out Alive & Well AIDS AlternativesLiving Without HIV Drugs; and the other sites in our list of links here.

Here are some obvious things anyone can do immediately to improve their health:

  • Quit Smoking.
  • Stop illicit drug use, including poppers.
  • Avoid environmental toxins in your home and workplace.
  • Evaluate your diet and make changes to insure you are providing your body with the nutrition it needs.
  • Reduce stress.


How can you expect people to believe that everything they’ve heard about HIV and AIDS might be wrong?

Many dissidents started questioning the AIDS paradigm before they ever heard of an AIDS dissident movement.  One of the most common search terms for other dissident sites is: “questioning aids”, which is why we chose this name.The history of AIDS has required constantly changing the orthodox theories. There have never been any absolute answers and one of the most commonly cited comments in the AIDS literature is: “while it is not understood how…”This question might better be asked: “how can everything we’ve heard about HIV and AIDS be right?”


Aren’t AIDS dissidents actually “denialists”? Why should they have any more credibility than those people who deny the Holocaust ever occurred, or even that the world is flat?

Using a pejorative term to label those one disagrees with as an enemy is a common propaganda technique. The term “denialist” is a pejorative term used by AIDS apologists to try to discredit anyone who questions the validity of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.It is a tactic of propagandists used by those who cannot or will not confront challenges to their authority with reason and logic.


If HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, what does?

This question may be the most important reason this site exists.  The answer is:  no one has been able to prove a cause that everyone else supports.Numerous alternative theories of AIDS causation have been proposed, and this site exists to encourage an open, constructive discussion of these ideas.


Do dissidents claim there is no such thing as AIDS?

Although many dissidents point out that the term “AIDS” is poorly defined (indeed, the official definition has changed several times over the years) and can mean varying things in different populations and countries, we do not deny that a collection of illnesses symptomatic of immune system dysfunction, eventually named AIDS by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in 1982, began to be recognized with alarming frequency in gay men and IV drug abusers in the early ‘80s.


I’ve read that some AIDS dissidents have refused to take the drugs and have died. Doesn’t that prove that they are wrong?

No. It may offer strong evidence they were ill, but that doesn’t constitute proof of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Contrary to popular belief, the so-called “HIV tests” are not detecting HIV but rather antibodies (more specifically, proteins) which may or may not be directed at HIV.

Many dissidents argue that an “HIV positive” test result is a non-specific indicator of an immune system challenge, in much the same way that a fever signals something is amiss without telling you exactly what it is.

Looked at that way, it is not surprising that some “HIV positive” individuals would be at a greater risk of developing illnesses, including ones that are life threatening, but it doesn’t tell you why that might be true.

There are also many that took the drugs and died, a fact that is often not mentioned by those making this point.


I know people who test positive who were very sick until they started taking the anti-AIDS drugs and got better. How do you explain that?

Many of the drugs used to treat “HIV positive” individuals, especially the class of drugs called protease inhibitors, have broad antimicrobial and antifungal properties. In other words, the idea that these drugs are strictly antiviral and active only against HIV and nothing else is false.

Any beneficial side-effects often occur in the absence of any or little effect on conventional markers of immune health such as t-cell counts or viral load measurements, indicating that something other than an antiviral effect is at play.


How can 99.99% of the world’s scientists be wrong?

This question is addressed at The Perth Group’s FAQ page here.


How can anyone be HIV positive and not have HIV?

This question is addressed at the Perth Group’s FAQ page here.


What exactly is wrong with the way HIV has been isolated?

This question is addressed at the Perth Group’s FAQ page here.


 Posted by at 5:51 am