A man recently wrote in to this web-site to ask me an interesting question: why was it that I was still writing about the origins of AIDS? He reasoned that for most people (at least in the West) AIDS is now a treatable disease; most of the people who were involved with the CHAT oral polio vaccine in the 1950s are now dead, and in any case it is unlikely that my theory of origin will ever be definitively proved as true. Under these circumstances, why keep going? Was it just in order to apportion blame?
It is with great regret that I have learnt through one of the subscribers to this site of the death of the American journalist Tom Curtis on January 22nd, 2017. Below is the notice that appeared on his Facebook page.
“To all friends of Tom Curtis.
Tom passed away peacefully at noon today after a many-years-long struggle with Parkinson’s disease. He will be sorely missed by the many who knew him and worked with him over the past 70+ years. There will be a gathering at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, 502 Church Rear Street, Galveston, TX on January 29 at 10:30 a.m. According to my sources, everyone who knew or admired Tom would be welcome to attend.”
Continue reading “Tom Curtis”
A new paper from the team of the University of Arizona molecular biologist, Michael Worobey, has just been published in Nature, to the usual fanfare of publicity. It seeks to demonstrate that the Canadian air steward, Gaetan Dugas, was not responsible for seeding the AIDS epidemic in the United States.
To those who have spent any time examining the history of AIDS, this is hardly new news. However, it is a plausible peg on which to hang an article in an attempt to render it newsworthy.
A recent, and highly relevant article by Brian Martin. Continue reading “Critical thinking about the origin of AIDS: Comments on Stephen Jenkins’ account”
Some weeks ago I heard disturbing rumours of new activity on Wikipedia regarding my work and that of Brian Martin. I asked Robert Dildine, who has previously done excellent work in this and similar areas, to investigate, and he has produced the following piece, which I commend to our readership.
Ed Hooper 16th May, 2016
Many thanks to all those who continue to write in to this web-site with their support and encouragement, and sometimes with fresh information as well. All such messages are greatly appreciated. It’s immensely reassuring that I can only recall one or two unsympathetic messages among the thousands received since we started this site 11 years ago.
A paper entitled “A Strange Case of Certainty”, written by Robert Dildine, an American analyst with a background in economics and law, has recently been posted on Brian Martin’s excellent Suppression of Dissent website. The paper analyses ways in which, even in a democratic society, institutional interests (both governmental and corporate) can influence or subtly control the thinking and opinions of individuals, especially in instances where popular opinion may have important political or economic implications.
The paper uses the “Origin of AIDS debate” as its central case-study.
I would like to recommend Bob Dildine’s paper as a fascinating and astute piece of analysis, all the more welcome because it extends the significance of the Origins of AIDS debate into new territory, relating to such subjects as intellectual arrogance, the control of ideas, the impartiality (or otherwise) of Wikipedia entries, and the ways in which both the well-intentioned and those with something to hide may seek to influence public perceptions of what is true and what is not.
I have never met Mr Dildine, but I have been in written contact with him over the past five years, initiated through this website, and have exchanged views with him that have contributed in many ways to my own thinking on this topic. I recommend his paper for its independent appraisal of the Origin of AIDS debate, as well as for the broader issues he addresses.
This is the direct link to Robert Dildine’s paper: http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/Dildine15.pdf
Ed Hooper, September 15th, 2015
[A recent communication from one of the co-authors of the Faria paper has provided new information, which requires an updated response from myself. Surprisingly, this information reveals even more evidence in favour of the OPV theory. Ed Hooper, November 11th, 2014.]
Several people have recently asked (either via the AIDSorigins site or via on-line message boards) for my opinions on the latest article about dating the beginning of the AIDS epidemic to Leopoldville/KInshasa in 1920.
The article is called “The early spread and epidemic ignition of HIV-1 in human populations”, and though released on-line earlier, it was published in the October 5th, 2014 issue of Science; [2014; 346; 56-61]. Most of the article is consistent with the rest of the work by its authors: the mooted early history of HIV-1 is nothing more or less than computer-generated guesswork.
But the authors have had a major rethink about some of the previous problem areas in their work, and certain crucial aspects of their analysis, though they do not advertise it, now align very closely with what I have been proposing for several years. All this is explained in more detail in the notes below. Continue reading “More supportive of OPV/AIDS than of the bushmeat hypothesis. (A revised response to the recent Faria paper in Science.)”
The following has been contributed by a friend, after reading the latest claims by the bushmeat people in the paper by Faria et al. I hope you like it. I think it provides a fresh and rather astute asessment of what is going on.
Ed Hooper, 3 November 2014
Continue reading “Bedtime Story”
Several people have recently asked (either via the AIDS Origins site or via on-line message boards) for my opinions on the latest article about dating the beginning of the AIDS epidemic to Leopoldville/KInshasa in 1920.
The article is called “The early spread and epidemic ignition of HIV-1 in human populations“, and though released earlier on-line, it was formally published in the October 5th, 2014 issue of Science; [2014; 346; 56-61]. Most of the article is consistent with the rest of the work by its authors: the mooted early history of HIV-1 is nothing more or less than computer-generated guesswork.
But the authors have had a major rethink about one of the previous problem areas in their work, and one crucial aspect of their analysis, though they do not advertise it, now aligns precisely with what I have been proposing for several years. In fact, it serves as another powerful confirmation of the OPV hypothesis. All this is explained in more detail in the notes below.
Continue reading “The recent Faria paper in Science: More flimsy AIDS origins speculations”