Customer Reviews

Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Science has indeed sold out and this book outlines the horrifying events that have resulted. Is it any wonder, considering how corporatized our culture has become, that Science too would fall prey to the almighty bottom line. The brand of science used in support of HIV is highly specious and has far more in common with religious dogma than with real science, and Dr. Culshaw brilliantly and succinctly exposes that dogma, at every turn.

The previous reviewer (Kate Volpe) is typical of the AIDS apologists frequently described in the book. Her review employs the cliched propaganda of the status quo in a pathetic attempt to malign Dr. Culshaw's character, while carefully neglecting to deal the many salient issues that this book boldly addresses. Such underhanded tactics seem to be the norm when one defends HIV, for its also seems that the theory has proven to be quite devoid of tangible explanatory value. Furthermore, Ms. Volpe's exaggerated incredulity is simply appalling, and I shudder to think of a future where there are no more people still buying "these kind of books", for many more of these kinds of books - books that reveal unpopular truths - will be necessary if we are to have hope for the future, given the present state of things. Regardless, we need to restore rigor and objectivity to Science, and we can only do that by honestly assessing its present unsound condition. Removing the numerous conflicts of interests that are exemplar in HIV science is a good place to start.

Of course, we could all go merrily along our way, mindlessly believing the pollyanna spewed forth by rubes like Ms. Volpe, but I'll think we'll all be better served if there is a public examination of the disputed "facts" used in support of HIV. Either way, I'll personally continue to require my facts to be a product of the evidence, unfettered by preconceived expectations and most certainly not mere statements of faith based on a corrupt consensus. That said, let's compare Ms. Volpe's notion of "fact" to Ms. Culshaw's.

Ms. Volpe writes:

"The facts are that HIV treatment is remarkably effective and has given people with HIV a new lease on life. The facts are that our focus now is getting these effective medications to the developing world, to the millions of children and adults who will die otherwise."

Contrast that fact-less tripe with the following quote from the book that we are presently reviewing:

"So healthy people stay healthy for a while and this is credited to the drugs--but there is no evidence to say that they would not have remained healthy even if they never took any medication at all. This is due to the fact that clinical trials of "anti-HIV" drugs rarely if ever use placebo controls, so there is no way to determine whether, for example, nevirapine is better than nothing...activists and researchers alike defend this fundamentally unscientific notion by saying that denying toxic drugs to HIV-positives is "unethical". "

As this passage demonstrates, anyone who values reason over emotion will discover many insights by reading this book, and you will equally discover that no harm will come from that simple act, contrary to what HIV pundits would have you believe. In fact, your experience may be similar to my own, and you may find yourself shocked and furious to discover the low standards by which HIV=AIDS has been measured. Regardless, this brief excerpt from Dr. Culshaw's book demonstrates that propaganda and fear-mongering are inferior to reason when evaluating the facts of any matter.

In closing this review, it should be noted that the new leading cause of death with HIV-positive AIDS patients is "liver failure" -- most likely due to the toxic medications that Ms. Volpe wants to ceremoniously deliver to the developing world. Of course, HIV defenders hide this fact by labeling all HIV-positive AIDS deaths as being "from complications of AIDS." Well, it is imperative to our collective health that we all better understand what those "complications" really entail, and you can certainly get a better understanding of that nebulous phrase by reading this very important book.

I just finished this book and while a short-read it was amazingly beneficial in terms of information, logic and resources. This book opens a whole new door of opportunity to look into factual and historically relevant information on this difficult issue.

As a person who was predicted to be dead years ago and is still healthy and going, this book brings a sense of understanding and balance to the nagging questions surrounding HIV/AIDS.

I would definitely recommend this book to anyone with an open-mind who wishes to understand the full story.

People who scream about information being "dangerous" are people who don't want said information released...I advise that you read and study yourself to decide.

What I know is that the established HIV/AIDS argument is to take their word for it or die. They refute evidence by calling people names or threatening that said "dissenters" are dangerous and killing people. They never, however, honestly refute the claims.

The "dissenters" are the only ones bringing forth arguments, facts, numbers etc to support their statements. The established side merely points to their imaginary pile of evidence and proclaim that the case is closed and they simply cannot be bothered to explain any further.

I personally have been convinced that authors like this are correct. They are the only ones providing real scientific evidence and the other side is nothing but stories about how something could or should happen - with no proof.

Read this book and decide for yourself.

As for me, I will not sacrifice my health for those who refuse to give me a good reason why.

To give you a brief taste, take this lasting concept to heart: It is believed that 1/3 of all people infected with HIV are unaware of their status. How is it, then, that we don't see thrones of people dying of AIDS-defined diseases left and right?

More importantly: why am I still alive?

Noting the long recognized near impossibility of isolating HIV particles even from advanced AIDS patients, Culshaw remarks: "The farcical concept of viral load was invented to crate the illusion of correcting this embarrassing fact." This book demonstrates that the entire theoretical edifice of HIV/AIDS is an illusion, a vast farce, now a faith, the greatest blunder in the history of medicine. It will forever shame what we today accept as "science" that a courageous young mathematician, armed with one brief volume, can so easily discredit twenty years of Earth's most advanced research enterprise.

In just 100 pages, this deceptively slender volume shreds the standard account of HIV and its relationship to AIDS. Though Culshaw is obviously outraged by the collusion of government, medical/scientific, and media establishments in silencing debate about HIV and AIDS, this book is no mere polemic. The science behind Culshaw's (and other dissenters') objections to the party line is dispassionately and rigorously argued from start to finish.

Readers might disagree with Culshaw's conclusion that the HIV hypothesis was always about behavior control and the disempowerment of homosexuals and blacks, with money and power only secondary motivations, but it is a welcome antidote to the perception that AIDS dissenters are themselves homophobic or racist in their intentions.

That HIV does not cause AIDS could hardly be stated more cogently, compactly, readably, and even comprehensively than in this book. The overall lack of logic and substance in the conventional wisdom is demonstrated, for example, Peter Duesberg is everywhere called "discredited" yet there is no published record anywhere of what that discrediting is. Culshaw points out how low are the standards of official arguments, which say things like "You don't need a reference that HIV causes AIDS," or "The fact that HIV and AIDS are so well correlated indicates that it must be the cause," when perhaps the first lesson in Statistics 101 is that correlations don't prove cause.
If anyone is willing to read just one "dissident" book about HIV/AIDS, this would be the ideal choice among some very worthy contenders.

Five stars is not enough. This book deserves a THOUSAND!

Finally a science book on HIV/AIDS that all can understand! Thank you Rebecca for this wonderful contribution to our understanding of the paradigm of HIV/AIDS. Once I began to read it, I could not put it down. And fortunately, it was to the point, understandable to everyone, and very neatly presented in a quick and easy to read package. I salute and thank you for this wonderful contribution to mankind, that sums up the issue of HIV, AIDS. It exposes the the frailty and flaws of man and science that have unfortunately distorted what would otherwise have been simple and obvious critical thinking on the emotional issues surrounding HIV and AIDS! This is a must read for all of mankind, that can enable us all to do our part to save ourselves from ourselves and from flaws in our understanding of science and medicine.

A great follow up to Peter Duesbergs "Inventing The Aids Virus" or as an eye opener for the uninitiated. This book is well researched and easy to read with some great insights and facts to show how ridiculous the HIV/AIDS hypothesis really is. She goes on to say that the HIV/AIDS juggernaut has become so big and powerful that there may be no way to stop it. I sincerely hope she is wrong about that, but it will not be easy.
Ed Stratford.

This book scares me. I read this book for a class and I will have to say that it has the potential to be quite dangerous to those who are in some way affected by HIV/AIDS and are seeking some sort of hope. With the use of mathematical figures and detailed scientific jargon, the author has created what appears to be a valid proposition--that contains half an argument. In an attempt to break the connection between HIV and AIDS, Culshaw has done little more than discuss the weaknesses of the HIV/AIDS correlation. However, it must be pointed out that Culshaw herself does say that there is no current understanding of AIDS which leads me to believe that her theory is based on what she does not understand. Overall, the book is skeptical at best and relies too heavily on repetitious points, mathematical figures, and scientific jargon that does little more than confuse and possibly impress readers. After reading the book I was left with a sense of discontent because I felt that the only thing she truly proved was that there is still a lot of research left to be done in the fields of HIV and AIDS--which should come to a shock to no one. I believe that the book is a bit reckless in its presentation of "fact" and "fiction," especially coming from a member of the scientific community. I would not recommend this book, but if you read it please approach it with caution.

This is a story about a math grad student who did her thesis on AIDS/HIV and discovered that there is no science behind the entire paradigm! She now is a math prof at Austin, but she has quit taking money to study HIV/AIDS in disgust.

Dr. Culshaw's short tractate serves best as an introduction to the distortions of science committed by a small cadre of mainly non-scientists who deny that HIV exists or that HIV can lead to AIDS. Tragically, her book does much more than that. I am saddened to read elsewhere that at least one individual has already decided to discontinue medical treatment for AIDS as a result of Dr. Culshaw's arguments.
As a firm proponent of free speech, I feel that Dr. Culshaw should be free to express her opinions, however unsupported and outlandish they are. However, Dr. Culshaw also claims to have an official capacity as scientist and professional educator. As such, she has a professional responsibility to strive for accuracy in her public statements, to admit when her expertise is lacking, and to take care to indicate that her opinions are neither those of her institution (the University of Texas) nor to be construed (as some already have) as medical advice. In this book, Dr. Culshaw seems to fail on all accounts.
"Science Sold Out" is replete with the factual inaccuracies, emotional hysteria, non sequiturs, and what appear to be willfully misleading statements that characterize the many previous installments of so-called "dissident" literature. Apparently, no actual scientist was sought out to critique or edit this book prior to publication. What separates Dr. Culshaw from, say, a Peter Duesberg (the most prominent dissident) is that Peter Duesberg has a strong grounding in biology, even if he has never experimented with HIV itself. By contrast, based upon her own statements in this book, Dr. Culshaw evidences no apparent familiarity with the basic concepts of virology, the tools of molecular biology, the discipline of epidemiology, or even the well-documented history of HIV and AIDS research.
Here are just a few of several hundred false or highly questionable statements that are presented as "fact" by Dr. Culshaw:
1) HIV prevalence in the US has remained constant since at least 1985.
To support this, RC presents a doctored graph from Peter Duesberg for which he mendaciously picks and chooses data points to maintain, by artifice, a flat line.
2) HIV did not spread exponentially and could not possibly remain at a constant level in the population if it were sexually transmitted. Therefore, HIV might not be sexually transmitted.
This dangerous theory ignores the fact that the initial, exponential spread of HIV went unmonitored in the US, as it occurred mainly in the 1970s before the virus was identified. In contrast, the initial, exponential spread of HIV HAS been monitored in several other countries, primarily in Asia. Further, epidemiological models predicting a plateau in HIV infection rates in the US were presented in the mid-80s. Dr. Culshaw seems unaware of these facts and also apparently confuses HIV's epidemiology with that of more transmissible pathogens such as syphilis or HPV.
3) "The African epidemic is pure fabrication." Tell that to the people in Africa.
4) "No one really understands how HIV works--or even, for that matter, what HIV really is." This is a puzzling statement from someone who claims to be a scientist. HIV is understood better than perhaps any other pathogen in the world.
5) HIV and AIDS were announced by fiat, "before any supporting evidence had been published or critiqued in the scientific literature." Scores of papers on HIV (before it was even named) were published before the April, 1984 press conference announcing the discovery. Anyone with access to the internet can verify this.
These examples all derive from the first seven pages of the book; later, Dr. Culshaw mischaracterizes HIV tests, the ability of scientists to isolate and measure HIV, the history of HIV treatment, and, in my estimation, almost every other topic she treats. The few positions on which I could agree have nothing to do with the science of HIV, the stated topic of Dr. Culshaw's book: Does any civilized being believe that AIDS patients should be stigmatized? Does any well-informed person still conflate HIV positivity and AIDS?
Perhaps most disturbingly, Dr. Culshaw, reportedly a PhD-level mathematician, commits a simple math error, startling and basic: she confuses absolute numbers with proportion on at least one occasion. On p.26-27, Dr. Culshaw claims that the CDC expanded the definition of AIDS in 1993, and the resulting increase in the total pool of AIDS patients led necessarily to a dramatic drop in "the number of those patients who actually died." Presumably, she means a drop in the proportion of patients. Perhaps this is merely poor writing (and we do see it elsewhere; for example, an individual cannot be "decimated" as Culshaw repeatedly abuses the word). But whatever point Dr. Culshaw was trying to make here, the fact is that absolute numbers AND proportions of AIDS deaths dropped in the 1990s...and remarkably. This is demonstrably due to improved treatments for AIDS, consisting not just of the many effective antiretrovirals that Dr. Culshaw campaigns against, but also of improved therapies for the individual diseases that comprise the syndrome.
I find it difficult to understand how a well-educated individual, scientist or not, with both control of her mental faculties and full access to libraries and the biomedical literature could write a book so chock-full of transparent falsehoods and misrepresentations. Is this self-delusion or intentional deception?