Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? (Terra Nova) Paperback – January 2, 2007
"Neverworld Wake" by Marisha Pessl
Read the absorbing new psychological suspense thriller from acclaimed New York Times bestselling author Marisha Pessl. Learn more
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
"An excellent account of the most shameful episode in the history of medicine. Rebecca Culshaw has pulled it all together: a history of inept and dishonest AIDS ‘science,’ the manifold reasons HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS, the harmfulness of AIDS drugs, the physical and psychological human suffering caused by the AIDS hoax."
—John Lauritsen, author of Poison By Prescription: The AZT Story and The AIDS War
"Every mathematician knows that by changing the definition of something, you can change the entire truth about that thing. Rebecca Culshaw describes how the HIV = AIDS ‘orthodoxists’ have abused this idea. As in a shell game, they keep moving the definitions around, so that anything can be true and everyone will be confused. The abuse of science that has been documented here is itself very frightening. But when we learn that the standard treatment for HIV-positives—antiviral therapy—will substantially increase their risk of dying, it’s even scarier."
—Dan Fendel, professor of mathematics, emeritus, San Francisco State University
About the Author
Rebecca Culshaw lives in Tyler, Texas, where she is assistant professor of mathematics at The University of Texas at Tyler. She came to the U.S. in 2002, after receiving her Ph.D. in mathematics from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. Culshaw has resided in Texas, Iowa, Nova Scotia, London, Ottawa, and Mzuzu, Malawi. She has published several journal articles regarding mathematical modeling of HIV immunology, and serves on the Advisory Board of Journal of Biological Systems.
Dr. Harvey Bialy has written the foreword to this book. Dr. Bialy is currently Scholar in Residence at National Autonomous University in Cuernavaca, Mexico. Prior to his retirement, he was founding editor of Nature Biotechnology, a sister journal to Nature. Dr. Bialy is author of Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg.
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Previously, the woman had had a child testing HIV-positive, and given him the medications prescribed. He developed severe symptoms – and died. Now a second child was tested HIV-positive, and started on prescribed medication. When symptoms like those of her first child developed in the second, the woman panicked, and refused to administer the medication. Hence the court action.
In the end, the judge found in favor of the woman. In his statement, he told the public health officials that they were certain that the medication and treatment they were enforcing was the best treatment. But a few years ago, they were just as certain of their prescriptions – which they now held to be inappropriate. Not going along with these inconsistent people did not make the mother unfit.
A similar case in Quebec ended differently. The judge found in favor of the public health officials. The woman involved had anticipated this, however, and had her car all gassed and stocked. When the decision was announced, the woman grabbed her kids and ran – and became a fugitive.
Rebecca Culshaw, in her book “Science Sold Out: Does HIV really cause AIDS?”, describes the scientific situation:
“In mathematics, a journal article takes a significant amount of time to write and at least several months to go through the review process. By the time a paper appears in print, it may well be years from the time the work was first started. On several occasions I submitted papers with fairly recent references regarding various aspects of HIV’s molecular biology, only to be answered with the criticism from a reviewer that some of these references were now ‘out of date’. Sometimes the references were only two or three years old. I later discovered that this is common occurrence in HIV research. … [I]t seems to be endemic in HIV research that, rather than continually building on an accumulating body of secure knowledge with only occasional missteps, the bulk of the structure gets knocked down every three to four years, replaced by yet another hypothesis, standard of care, or definition of what, exactly, AIDS really is. This new structure eventually gets knocked down in the same fashion.
“Even more disturbing is the fact that HIV researchers continually claim that certain papers’ results are out of date, yet they have absolutely no hesitation in citing the entire body of scientific research on HIV as massive overwhelming evidence in favor of HIV. They can’t have it both ways, yet this is exactly what they try to do.” (p. 11,12)
In another place: “HIV researchers … conveniently ‘forget’ every few years when they announce a new and exciting discovery that will ‘explain everything’ that a similarly new and exciting discovery from a few years back is now shown to be wrong … .” (p.8)
Again: “[HIV researchers] know that the history of HIV/AIDS is littered with documented cases of fraud, incompetence, and poor-quality research, yet they find it almost impossible to imagine that this could be happening at the present moment. They know their predictions have never panned out, yet they keep inventing mysterious mechanisms for HIV pathogenesis. They know many therapies of the past are now acknowledged to be mistakes …. , yet they never imagine that their current therapies … might one day be acknowledged as mistakes themselves.
“It’s time for them to wake up.” (p. 21,22)
The situation with HIV/AIDS science is as follows: Government scientists (at NIH) recognized an association (not very good: only 26 out of a cohort of 72 “had any trace of HIV”, p.61) between a Virus (HIV) and some diseases previously associated with AIDS. They jumped to the conclusion that HIV caused AIDS. And immediately curtailed funding any research into other possible causes. They then built a science on the assumption that HIV causes AIDS. Their science has resulted in an enormous amount of information abut the virus HIV, but continually fails both in predictions and in understanding how HIV might cause AIDS. Consequently, the science is continually being scrapped and restated. This is strong indication that the unproven assumption is, in fact, false.
Prof. Culshaw’s book has been characterized by another reviewer as “denialist literature”. According to the dictionary, the state of being in denial is “a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the reality.” HIV scientists can use the word “denialists” of their critics because they assume that their own perception of HIV science really is reality. Note that what they do here linguistically is exactly what they do with their science: they confuse their own unproven ideas with reality.
At one time, Rebecca Culshaw had implicit faith in the official science of HIV/AIDS. Writing both a masters and a Ph.D. thesis on HIV modeling, she was deeply and professionally involved in that science. And she changed her mind because of the scientific evidence. (By the way, I’ve never heard of an instance of the reverse process – where someone that does not think HIV causes AIDS changes their mind because of the scientific evidence.)
Prof. Culshaw concludes one chapter with the statement, “It is this decline in scientific standards [that she has been demonstrating, and that I myself have witnessed] that I point to when I am asked how so many scientists and doctors could be so wrong. Given the current research atmosphere, it was almost inevitable that a very significant scientific mistake was going to be made.” (p. 15)
My own interpretation of why the HIV mistake was accepted by the medical community differs from Prof. Culshaw’s. What happens to a nurse, if he or she openly disagrees with an MD? What happens if a resident (new MD) criticizes the head of medicine in his or her program? In both cases an entire career is jeopardized. In medicine there is a top-down authority that is adhered to. Physicians are noticed, and possibly in jeopardy, if their care does not line up with the “standard of care”. So medicine has a standing, top-down authority structure. And an accepted, top-down way of getting information. And what happens if at the very top of this structure, where research is done and funding is decided, if we have “Science Sold Out”?
Nor is she right about the virus never having been identified. The virus has been captured by electron microscopy, and has been isolated successfully and cultures of the isolate grown in laboratories. The structure of the virus is known in great detail.
The author then makes the claim that it has never been proven that HIV causes AIDS; she argues instead that AIDS-like symptoms are caused by the medications such as AZT. That HIV causes AIDS is well-established following Koch's Postulates for an infectious agent: (1) The agent must be present in all instances of the disease; (2) The agent must be successfully isolated and cultured in a lab; (3) Samples of this cultured agent cause the disease when given to a lab animal; and (4) The agent can be isolated from this infected lab animal and shown to be the same as that from the original culture. HIV passes all four tests.
The first test is on somewhat shaky grounds, however, because there have been a number of cases which were diagnosed as AIDS but were subsequently shown to be HIV-negative. These mis-steps could have been avoided if an HIV test had been conducted prior to diagnosis, and an HIV-related condition diagnosed only if HIV is found to be present.
The author ridicules the idea that the virus can remain dormant for so long, progressing to AIDS only after 5-15 years have elapsed. Scientists now working in this area no longer believe in a dormant period, but that, rather, the HIVirus begins its insidious work immediately, and signs of infection -- not merely the presence of antibodies -- can be detected within weeks of infection by HIV. The author points out that the CD4 cells do not die by lysis as is typical of other infections. While this may be the case, it does not account for the discovery of dead CD4 cells carrying the HIVirus.
The author's strongest point deals with the HIV antibody test which she claims is unreliable. She would get no argument from the scientific community there, nor would she even get an argument from the sellers of kits for testing HIV antibodies. The testing kits all carry disclaimers that they are unsuitable for diagnosing HIV infection or AIDS. The test is susceptible to false positives for many reasons, including pregnancy, as well as infection with malaria or tuberculosis. Moreover, the test, as its name implies, tests only for antibodies, not the virus itself. The author argues that the test therefore lacks specificity as it produces false positive results for numerous factors which are not HIV. The author suggests that an HIV diagnosis should be given only if HIV can be cultured from that person's blood. While this may be a valid point, it would be prohibitively expensive, and would likely lead to the opposite problem -- excessive numbers of false negatives -- because of the well-known difficulties of culturing HIV in the lab.
Published in 2007, more than a decade after the "three-drug cocktail" had emerged as a successful treatment for HIV infection, the author dismisses this advance and instead she focuses on AZT. The problems with AZT were well-known by 2007, so the author's concerns are misplaced when she decries the use of AZT. She is quite simply wrong when she equates the three-drug cocktail with AZT. It is true that the three-drug cocktail is not without its side effects, but they do not mimic the symptoms of AIDS as did the large doses of AZT given when that drug was first introduced. AZT and the three-drug cocktail are a false equivalency.
This text is a rehash of familiar denialist arguments against HIV and its role in causing AIDS. I did learn a few new things here (e.g., pregnancy causes false positives on the HIV antibody test), but the book was unpersuasive overall. While the author takes care to support some of her claims with citations to other research, at times she makes breathtaking claims without providing sources. Are these claims conclusions made by the mathematician author or uncited claims she found when researching the literature? I do not recommend this book even as an example of HIV denialist literature. Quite a number of better denialist books have been published, most notably Peter Duesberg's Inventing the AIDS Virus.
Thank You Professor Culshaw.
Most recent customer reviews
Finally a science book on HIV/AIDS that all can understand!Read more