There was a time when acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) was compared to the Holocaust. Thousands of young, healthy people suddenly succumbed to rare, aggressive cancers and diseases with no hope in sight. When the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was identified and linked to AIDS, it was a monumental victory for the medical community that over time helped those with HIV/AIDS have a means by which to manage their condition and has kept the scientific community optimistic that a cure can be found.
However, as with other awe-inspiring medical and scientific breakthroughs, there exists a cabal of “HIV truthers” thoroughly convinced that either HIV does not exist, or if it does, it is harmless. Much like those who refuse to vaccinate their children because they believe vaccinations are linked to autism, HIV truthers have no actual scientific pedestal on which to stand. While they are a fringe collective, much like anti-vaxxers, HIV truthers are no doubt influential in the sense that their conspiracy theory has been able to persist despite mountains of evidence refuting each claim they make.
To some HIV truthers, the symptoms of AIDS are actually caused by the HIV therapies themselves. To some HIV truthers, HIV is an elaborate hoax. To some HIV truthers, it’s a little too convenient that as a stigmatized, vulnerable population we’re succumbing to a horrific disease, and a shiny new multi-million dollar prescription drug market emerged, ready and willing to absorb the cold hard cash of a stigmatized, vulnerable population succumbing to a horrific disease.
To some HIV truthers, HIV/AIDS was manufactured by the United States government to wipe out minority populations around the world.
All of these theories, and countless others, persisted while tens of thousands died slowly and agonizingly because of a condition about which they knew next to nothing.
Unfortunately, while it’s easy to roll our eyes at a rabid group of conspiracy theorists, the social and political influence of their theories is hard to ignore. In the United States, the denial movement led to many patients rejecting treatment. The American public became hostile toward those who were HIV-positive and those whose condition had already progressed to AIDS. Evangelist Jerry Falwell claimed AIDS was “God’s punishment not just for homosexuals” but for a “society that tolerates homosexuals.” The home of children Ricky, Robert, and Randy Ray was burned down by neighbors after a Florida judge ordered their school to admit the young brothers.
All of this, and more, took place while President Ronald Reagan largely ignored the AIDS crisis and did little by way of containing the spread of the disease during his presidency — even after one of his best friends, actor Rock Hudson, died from AIDS-related complications.
On a more global scale, HIV denial took hold of South Africa’s presidency, as President Thabo Mbeki’s public health policies are estimated as having contributed to over 330,000 deaths that otherwise would have been preventable. In the former USSR, KGB and Stansi operatives coordinated a massive misinformation campaign that labeled HIV/AIDS as a biological weapon created by the United States. While we may never fully know the degree in which HIV/AIDS denialism wreaked havoc on the people and the politics of many nations around the world, we do know that HIV/AIDS denialism created a paranoid, aggressive, and largely-ignorant culture in many places and that the cynicism and belligerence made the crisis worse than it already should have been.
While HIV/AIDS denialism has been largely subdued since the late-1990s (save for Christine Maggiore and an unfortunate incident involving the alternative rock band Foo Fighters), that doesn’t mean it’s gone. In the same way, just because the anti-vaccination movement appears to be losing steam, doesn’t mean it is gone either. The impact of HIV/AIDS denialism in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s serves as a relic of how bad things can get when the fringe of society is allowed to have their day in the sun.
HIV/AIDS denialism had no real scientific basis to justify it and that’s the biggest takeaway from the trend. That’s the lesson that should have been learned, but it appears that the lesson has not been learned. HIV/AIDS denial is pseudoscience, as is climate change denial. Yet, several Republican presidential hopefuls, along with large portions of affiliated Republicans both in Congress and in the public, hold positions that climate change isn’t real, or if it is, then it’s not influenced by human activities.
That sounds very similar to the statements made by HIV/AIDS denialists.
So, why the issue of consistency? It’s probably sound to assume that if one were to ask those who deny climate change or those who believe vaccines cause autism whether or not they believe in HIV, the given answers would not be nearly as radical as their views on climate or vaccinations. There may never be a concrete, personified reason why someone can scoff at pseudoscience with one topic and buy it wholesale with another. After all, there are people who understand the science of climate change while also express wholehearted belief that a crucified man came back from the dead after three days. However, that doesn’t mean the inconsistency should be ignored or just chalked up to “people being people,” for many of these issues where the pseudoscientific claims of a few are given just as much spotlight and mic time as established science have wide-reaching consequences that affect all of us.
HIV/AIDS denial contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths that could have likely been avoided. Anti-vaccination movements have led to the reemergence of diseases like measles, that not long ago were considered eradicated. Climate change denial may ultimately lead to the prolonged suffering, or even extinction, of the human species. Yet, these dangerous ideas have been perpetuated to the point of being considered reasonable counterarguments to policy. In effect, the voices of those who believe HIV isn’t real, or isn’t dangerous, have been put on equal footing as the scientists who have evidence to support that it is. The voices of those who believe vaccinations cause autism have been given just as much priority as the scientists who have evidence to support that they don’t. The voices of those who refute climate change have just as much influence in politics as the scientists who have evidence that the climate is getting warmer and fossil fuel dependence is a cause.
Those without evidence are being considered just as important as those with evidence. If this is the way things are going to be, then what is the point of evidence?
