3 ms·

> In his book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the War on Democracy and Public Health, Kennedy says he takes "no position on the relationship

> In his book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the War on Democracy and Public Health, Kennedy says he takes "no position on the relationship between HIV and AIDS"," [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.

enragedcacti 3y ago
Sorry it seems like you miscopied the quote and left off this clause starting with "but": > , but he spends over a hundred pages quoting HIV denialists such as Peter Duesberg who question the isolation of HIV and the etiology of AIDS.[269] Kennedy himself refers to the "orthodoxy that HIV alone causes AIDS",[252]: 348 and the "theology that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS",[252]: 351 as well as repeating the HIV/AIDS denialist false claim that no one has isolated the HIV particle and "No one has been able to point to a study that demonstrates their hypothesis using accepted scientific proofs".
- dekhn 3y ago
  That HIV causes AIDS is almost certainly true came from overwhelming evidence from multiple angles, not from some sort of "scientific proof". Realistically there is no such thing as scientific proof- just "enough evidence that making the alternative case requires extraordinary evidence and predictive ability". What I don't like is that Kennedy is trying to place a pseudoscientific veneer over a conspiracy theory idea, sort of "oh hey it looks like the science is still up in the air". If somebody were to convincingly demonstrate that HIV didn't cause AIDS, it would rewrite large sections of many textbooks.
- kolanos 3y ago
  I was responding to your claim that "he thinks", not the claim that all these other scientists that he covers in a book think. Anthony Fauci used to spread misinformation about AIDS, too. [0] [0]: https://www.yahoo.com/video/video-resurfaces-fauci-warning-household-180945365.html https://www.yahoo.com/video/video-resurfaces-fauci-warning-h...
  - dekhn 3y ago
    the first reported cases of HIV/AIDS were around 1981, he said that in 1983, and at the time, we actually didn't know very much about transmission. 1983 was the year that HIV was determined to be the cause of AIDS. That's not spreading misinformation because nobody at the time really knew any better for sure, and the precautionary principle applies in this case. Further, he went on to be one of the "heroes" of HIV/AIDS. I was so terrified of HIV/AIDS at that time that I went into drug discovery research and later worked with people who helped develop anti-HIV drugs (protease and transcriptase inhibitors). To hear people today try to discredit Fauci for doing his job is just painful to watch. It took decades of hard research before we really understood the nature of transmission. I believe the current understanding is mucous membranes between two people touching has a measurable but very small rate (.01% of exposures lead to infection).

enragedcacti 3y ago

Sorry it seems like you miscopied the quote and left off this clause starting with "but": > , but he spends over a hundred pages quoting HIV denialists such as Peter Duesberg who question the isolation of HIV and the etiology of AIDS.[269] Kennedy himself refers to the "orthodoxy that HIV alone causes AIDS",[252]: 348 and the "theology that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS",[252]: 351 as well as repeating the HIV/AIDS denialist false claim that no one has isolated the HIV particle and "No one has been able to point to a study that demonstrates their hypothesis using accepted scientific proofs".

dekhn 3y ago
That HIV causes AIDS is almost certainly true came from overwhelming evidence from multiple angles, not from some sort of "scientific proof". Realistically there is no such thing as scientific proof- just "enough evidence that making the alternative case requires extraordinary evidence and predictive ability". What I don't like is that Kennedy is trying to place a pseudoscientific veneer over a conspiracy theory idea, sort of "oh hey it looks like the science is still up in the air". If somebody were to convincingly demonstrate that HIV didn't cause AIDS, it would rewrite large sections of many textbooks.
kolanos 3y ago
I was responding to your claim that "he thinks", not the claim that all these other scientists that he covers in a book think. Anthony Fauci used to spread misinformation about AIDS, too. [0] [0]: https://www.yahoo.com/video/video-resurfaces-fauci-warning-household-180945365.html https://www.yahoo.com/video/video-resurfaces-fauci-warning-h...
- dekhn 3y ago
  the first reported cases of HIV/AIDS were around 1981, he said that in 1983, and at the time, we actually didn't know very much about transmission. 1983 was the year that HIV was determined to be the cause of AIDS. That's not spreading misinformation because nobody at the time really knew any better for sure, and the precautionary principle applies in this case. Further, he went on to be one of the "heroes" of HIV/AIDS. I was so terrified of HIV/AIDS at that time that I went into drug discovery research and later worked with people who helped develop anti-HIV drugs (protease and transcriptase inhibitors). To hear people today try to discredit Fauci for doing his job is just painful to watch. It took decades of hard research before we really understood the nature of transmission. I believe the current understanding is mucous membranes between two people touching has a measurable but very small rate (.01% of exposures lead to infection).