“There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS”: AIDS denialism beliefs among people living with HIV/AIDS

Below is an excerpt from a new study published by Seth C. Kalichman, Lisa Eaton, & Chauncey Cherry in Journal of Behavioral Medicine


Click here to obtain the full article or write me for a reprint.

Introduction

Fringe and extremist groups that challenge well-established historical and scientific facts have become increasingly visible, particularly on the Internet. Holocaust Deniers, for example, claim that Nazi Germany did not systematically kill 6 million Jews and Global Warming Deniers believe that climatology is a flawed science with no proof of greenhouse gases changing the atmosphere. Among the most vocal anti-science denial movements is AIDS Denialism, an outgrowth of the radical views of University of California biologist Peter Duesberg. Duesberg claims that HIV and all other retroviruses are harmless and that AIDS is actually caused by illicit drug abuse, poverty, and antiretroviral medications. Until recently,  AIDS scientists have largely ignored denialists, stating that they are no longer relevant and are not a threat to HIV/AIDS treatment and care. 

            Unfortunately, ignoring AIDS denialists has not addressed the problem and AIDS denialism is flourishing as a result. AIDS denialism promotes the idea that HIV is harmless and cannot cause any disease, most certainly not AIDS. Some AIDS denialists claim that there is no proof that HIV exists at all. HIV antibody tests are said to be invalid because anyone can test HIV positive, people who do test positive do not develop AIDS, and there are people who develop AIDS who have never tested HIV positive. AIDS denialism rejects HIV treatments as toxic poisons that do more harm than good. The central tenant of AIDS denialism is that there is an ongoing debate among legitimate scientists regarding whether HIV even exists and if it does exist whether HIV causes AIDS. AIDS denialism intersects with AIDS conspiracy theories, and may impede HIV prevention and treatment.

            The adverse effects of AIDS denialism have been most discussed in South Africa, where former President Thabo Mbeki gave equal credibility to AIDS Denialists and genuine AIDS scientists. As a result, the South African government delayed HIV testing and thwarted efforts to distribute antiretroviral medications. The result was devastating, with over 330,000 South Africans dying earlier than necessary from AIDS and over 35,000 babies needlessly HIV infected because medications that can prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission were not made available. Other African countries have followed South Africa by embracing AIDS denialism, such as Gambia where the President claims to cure AIDS with a potion revealed by his ancestors.

            Recent research suggests that AIDS denialism is undermining HIV prevention and treatment in the US. One study of gay and bisexual men in five US cities showed that 45% of men agreed with the statement “HIV does not cause AIDS” and 51% of men agreed with the statement “HIV/AIDS drugs can harm you more than help you”. A study of people living with HIV/AIDS also found surprisingly high rates of AIDS denialist beliefs, with 17% of infectious disease clinic patients in Baltimore agreeing with the statement “HIV does not cause AIDS”. Wald et al. showed that AIDS denialist beliefs were most frequently endorsed by patients who were not being treated with antiretroviral medications, suggesting a vulnerability to AIDS denialist rhetoric.

            The current study examined AIDS denialism beliefs in a community sample of men and women living with HIV/AIDS. We hypothesized that people living with HIV/AIDS who use the Internet will be more inclined to endorse AIDS denialism beliefs and that interest in misinformation taken from the internet will be associated with greater endorsement of AIDS denialist beliefs. In addition, we hypothesized that people living with HIV/AIDS who believe that there is a debate among scientists about whether HIV causes AIDS would demonstrate less use of antiretroviral medications, poorer treatment adherence, and poorer HIV-related health status.

Key Findings

            Results showed that AIDS denialism beliefs were common in our sample with more than one in five participants endorsing at least one AIDS denialism belief. Comparisons of less frequent and more frequent internet users indicated a pattern of differences that confirmed our first hypothesis; AIDS denialism beliefs were more often endorsed by more frequent users of the internet. Participants who used the internet at least weekly were significantly more likely to believe that there is a debate among scientists about whether HIV causes AIDS, the central tenant of AIDS denialism. More frequent internet users were also significantly more likely to believe that there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS. More frequent internet users also endorsed treatment denialist beliefs, particularly the notion that HIV is treatable using herbal and non-toxic natural remedies. 

Interest in AIDS denialism websites

            Ninety-seven (28%) participants indicated that they planned to look up additional information from the AIDS denialist website of Rath International after reading the passage. Participants (N = 128, 37%) also planned to look up additional information from the AIDS denialist website by Jonathan Campbell. As a point of comparison, 147 (42%) planned to look up nutrition information from Tufts Medical School. As expected, believability and trust ratings were higher among participants who planned to look up additional information from each of the three website passages. Believability and trust ratings for the two AIDS denialist websites were lower than Tuft’s medical website.  

            Participants who planned to look up additional information from Rath International  and Jonathan Campbell endorsed greater AIDS denialism beliefs than those not planning to look up additional information. In contrast, the difference between participants who did and did not plan to look up information from the Tufts (control) website did not differ on AIDS denialism beliefs.

AIDS denialism beliefs and health outcomes

            Confirming our second hypothesis, individuals who believed that there is a debate among scientists as to whether HIV causes AIDS were significantly less likely to be receiving antiretroviral therapy. In addition, those who were taking medications and endorsed AIDS denialism beliefs were significantly less adherent to their medications. Participants who endorsed the central AIDS denialism belief that there is a debate among scientists had experienced more HIV related symptoms and were less likely to have an undetectable viral load compared to participants who did not endorse this belief. 

            Finally, among participants who were not currently taking antiretroviral medications (N = 140), we found those who believed that scientists are debating whether HIV causes AIDS endorsed reasons for not taking medications that are propagated by AIDS denialism; simply not wanting to take antiretroviral medications and not trusting the safety of HIV medications (see 

Conclusions

            Results of the current study indicate that beliefs aligned with AIDS denialism were common in our community sample of people living with HIV/AIDS. Although overall endorsements of multiple denialism beliefs were low, more than one in three participants endorsed the belief that there is a debate among scientists as to whether HIV causes AIDS and one in five agreed with the statement that there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS. Participants also endorsed statements consistent with AIDS denialist views on HIV treatments including that antiretroviral medications do more harm than good. Endorsements of AIDS denialism-related beliefs were similar to those observed in other research with HIV positive men and women and are consistent with findings from community surveys with gay men in major US cities. Exit interviews confirmed that participants understood the denialism belief items. Although participants did not represent 'AIDS dissidents' per se, their beliefs suggest a vulnerability to misinformation and fraud.

            The association between internet use and AIDS denialism beliefs occurred despite better education and more accurate AIDS knowledge. One potential explanation for this paradoxical finding is that knowledge is not the same as beliefs.  More frequent use of the Internet has the potential to expose users to both accurate and false information. In our sample, the internet was commonly used to find treatment information and these internet search functions practically assure exposure to AIDS denialist websites. We found that participants who expressed interest in accessing additional information from recognized AIDS denialism websites also held stronger AIDS denialism beliefs, an association not observed with our control website passage. Trust and believability ratings were also higher than would be expected by the number of denialism beliefs that were endorsed. One explanation for the discrepancy is that participants may have been more willing to endorse trusting information than openly endorsing ideas that clearly fall outside the mainstream. Given the difficulty that many people living with HIV/AIDS face in discriminating quality health information from quackery and fraud online, the vulnerability to AIDS denialism among AIDS affected populations is apparent.

            The current study is among the first to show adverse health outcomes associated with AIDS denialism beliefs. Controlling for potential confounds, we found that individuals who endorsed the core belief that there is a debate among scientists as to whether HIV causes AIDS were less likely to receive HIV treatments and more likely to refuse medications. Furthermore, participants who believed there is a debate and were being treated with antiretroviral medications were less adherent to their medications. Agreeing that there is a debate about whether HIV causes AIDS was also related to experiencing more HIV-related symptoms and having a detectable viral load. The false hope that comes with believing that scientists do not agree that HIV causes AIDS therefore has the potential to undermine HIV prevention and treatment.

            The results of this study highlight the complexity of HIV disease and the difficulty many patients experience in trying to understand their diagnosis. Simple measures of AIDS knowledge, such as the one used in this study, may fail to capture the nuances and subtle aspects of misinformation. Determining the trustworthiness of information sources is also problematic, with labels and credentials easily confused for credibility. Because the current study did not examine the origins of AIDS denial, future research is needed to trace the individual and cultural roots of denialism beliefs. Further research is needed on how vulnerable patients understand their diagnoses, interpret health information, and format health beliefs. Mixed designs of qualitative and quantitative research may be particularly useful in gaining insight into these cognitive and affective processes.  

            Openly discussing the baseless views of AIDS denialists and exposing the pseudoscience behind AIDS denialism is key to diluting its impact. Individuals exposed to the false hope that their HIV positive test result is meaningless may reject these claims if they are aware of the source and recognize they are false. Improving critical thinking skills among people who use the internet to seek health information is essential to reducing the harms of AIDS denialism. Interventions aimed at improving internet health consumer skills have demonstrated positive effects and can directly address AIDS denialism. Finally, providers should discuss the evidence-base for HIV treatments and standards of care with their patients. Leaving patients on their own to determine the quality of health information they encounter on the Internet leaves many vulnerable to misinformation, denialism and fraud. Ignoring AIDS denialism undermines our best efforts to test, engage, and care for people living with HIV/AIDS.  

Fruska Gora Monasteries

Krusedol Monastery

This is a guestpost I made for the #1 site for travel deals: onetravel.wordpress.com.

 The Northern part of Serbia is called Vojvodina Region and is part of the Pannonian plain of Central Europe. The only mount in this extended flat region is the National Park of Fruska Gora which is also a well know tourist destination, and thanks to his hospitable and fertile environment around 35 monasteries were erected between the 15th and 18th century (some monasteries dates even from earlier time) in an area of 50 x 10 km.

 Krušedol  Monastery (Крушедол)

These monasteries were repeatedly protagonists of the history of the Serbian Nation, as pilgrims and refugees found places during time of persecutions. They were among the focal points of resistance against the Ottomans and also places of storage for treasures of orthodox spirituality and art over the centuries.

Today there are just 15 monasteries left and some of them were damaged during the NATO bombing campaign in 1999.
So now Fruška Gora Monasteries were declared Monuments of Culture of Exceptional Importance in 1990, and they are protected by Republic of Serbia.

Velika Remeta Monastery  (Велика Ремета)

Novo Hopovo Monastery (Ново Хопово)

Nemanja from SpiritualSerbia (a company that organizes trips to Serbian-orthodox monasteries all over South-East-Europe) gave me some pictures of the beautiful Fruska Gora Monasteries and explained the most important facts for visiting Monasteries in orthodox countries.

Nemanja tells that the monks in Serbian orthodox monastery are not really strict about behavior of visitors in the monastery, as they assume that if you dress not adequate and behave rather rude, that you’re not doing it on purpose, but that you just don’t have a clue about the rules. However it’s nice to show you arrive prepared and are willing to show your respect for their holy place.

Jazak Monastery (Јазак)

Here some tips for visiting monasteries:

Apropriate clothing: For men it’s long trousers and closed shoes, and no head coverage. For woman it’s a long skirt, long sleeves and a headscarf.

Greeting the monks: Walking toward the monk (or monks) you can nicely say: "pomaže bog" (literally: That god helps) and he will answer "bog pomogao" (literally: God helps). The monk will then hands you his hand that you will hold in your both hands and bend down your head and tell: "oče blagoslovi" (literally: Father bless me) and he will make a sign to bless you.
 
Of course you don't need to do all that, a simple greeting is fine. The monastery always will send one monk to show you around the monastery and answer your questions. Often you will be invited for coffee and cakes or exquisite monastery rakija. If you want to show gratitude leave some money or in the designated places or simply by the icons in the chapel.

Grgeteg Monastery(Гргетег)

Beočin Monastery (Беочин)

Vrdnik-Ravanica Monastery (Врдник-Раваница)

Nemanja from Spiritualtours proposes nices bed&brakfasts for overnight stays and good ethno restaurants for tasting Serbian Specialties.

Here the official site of SpiritualSerbia

One Less Outlet for AIDS Deniers: Thank You Elsevier

New editor for Medical Hypotheses
 Posted by Jef Akst at TheScientist.com

Biomedical scientist Mehar Manku will take over as editor-in-chief at Elsevier's embattled, previously non-peer-reviewed journalMedical Hypotheses, the publisher announced today (June 24).

In his new role, Manku, a member of the editorial board since 2004, vows to maintain the journal's unusual aim of distributing novel, radical ideas in medicine and related biomedical sciences while employing a more traditional peer review process than the journal saw under its previous editor,Bruce Charlton,whose contract was terminated after he refused to implement such a system.

"First, we will retain the ethos, heritage and unique characteristics of the journal as they were proposed at inception," Manku said in a statement. "Second, we will engage a medically qualified editorial board to get members more involved in the review system to help ensure radical new ideas and speculations in medicine are given open-minded consideration while ensuring scientific merit."

He may have a long road ahead of him -- last month, editorial board member William Bainsspoke withThe Scientistand said most of the board planned to resign in response to Elsevier's changes to the journal, which found itself in hot water after Charlton chose to publish an article by notorious AIDS denialist Peter Duesburg of the University of California, Berkeley. Duesburg was subsequently the subject of a university investigation launched last November to determine whether he had violated the university's code of conduct by submitting the article toMedical Hypotheses, but was cleared of the charges earlier this week.

Manku is executive editor and editor-in-chief of a leading journal in the lipid field,Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids, and part-time chief scientist at Amarin Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company focused on cardiovascular disease.



__________________________________________________________________________________
RELATED STORY



Elsevier Announces New Medical Hypotheses Editor-in-Chief

OXFORD, England, June 24, 2010  

- Dr. Mehar Manku Assumes Leadership of Unique Journal, Vowing to Embrace the Journal's Original Ethos While Implementing a Different Approach to the Peer Review Process

Elsevier (http://www.elsevier.com) announced today that Dr. Mehar Manku has accepted the position of Editor-in-Chief of the journal Medical Hypotheses. In this role Dr. Manku will lead a popular, unique journal that constitutes a bridge between cutting-edge theory and the mainstream of medical and scientific communication. Dr. Manku provided invaluable editorial help to Dr. David Horrobin, the journal's founder and first Editor-in-Chief, during a period of illness, before becoming a member of the Editorial Board in 2004.

Dr. Manku stated upon his appointment, "Elsevier and I make two commitments to ensure the long term success of this journal. First, we will retain the ethos, heritage and unique characteristics of the journal as they were proposed at inception. Second, we will engage a medically qualified editorial board to get members more involved in the review system to help ensure radical new ideas and speculations in medicine are given open-minded consideration while ensuring scientific merit."

Medical Hypotheses is a forum for ideas in medicine and related biomedical sciences. It will publish interesting and important theoretical papers that foster the diversity and debate upon which the scientific process thrives. In the words of Dr. David Horrobin in Volume 1, Issue 1, "Medical Hypotheses will publish papers which describe theories, ideas which have a great deal of observational support and some hypotheses where experimental support is yet fragmentary".[1]

Dr. Manku is responsible for implementing a new form of peer review that is unique to Medical Hypotheses submissions. Medical Hypotheses aims to give open-minded consideration to novel, radical new ideas and speculations in medicine which would probably be rejected by most conventional journals. Submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editor and external reviewers to ensure their scientific merit. All reviewers will be fully aware of the Aims and Scope of the journal and will be judging the premise, originality and plausibility of the hypotheses submitted.

Dr. Manku has been in biomedical sciences for 35 years, developing medicines based on fatty acids and lipids. He also spent the last 26 years as Executive Editor and Editor-in-Chief (since 2003) of one of the leading peer-reviewed journals in the lipid field: "Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids." Dr. Manku is a part time Chief Scientist at Amarin Corporation, a member of the American Oil Chemists Society and The International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids (http://www.issfal.org.uk/).

The journal also plans to implement an online comment section encouraging active participation and debate on the journal's contents.

The Shame of Academia: No Price for Reckless Public Health Mischief

Berkeley Drops Probe of Duesberg After Finding 'Insufficient Evidence'

by Martin Enserink on June 21, 2010 2:07 PM 

The paper that cost the editor of Medical Hypotheses his job will have no further consequences for its main author, molecular virologist Peter Duesberg of the University of California (UC), Berkeley. The university has ended its misconduct investigation after concluding that Duesberg was within his rights when he wrote that there is no evidence of a deadly AIDS epidemic in South Africa.

Duesberg's paper, published online on 19 July 2009, triggered a storm of protests from AIDS scientists and activists. Elsevier, the publisher ofMedical Hypotheses, has retracted the article and has terminated the contract of the journal's editor, Bruce Charlton of Newcastle University in the United Kingdom, who declined to introduce a peer review system at the 35-year-old journal.

UC Berkeley started its investigation in August after receiving two letters of complaint, one from activist Nathan Geffen of the Treatment Action Coalition in South Africa. (University rules allow people making such allegations to remain anonymous.) The investigation, by UC Berkeley epidemiologist Arthur Reingold, focused on two allegations: That the article was retracted because of false claims in the paper and that Duesberg should have disclosed an alleged financial conflict of interest. One of his co-authors, David Rasnick, formerly worked for Matthias Rath, a vitamin entrepreneur who claims that HIV drugs are dangerous and that his dietary supplements can cure AIDS.

In a letter Duesberg forwarded to ScienceInsider, Berkeley Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Faculty Welfare Sheldon Zedeck writes that there is "insufficient evidence ... to support a recommendation for disciplinary action, pursuant to the Faculty Code of Conduct." (Zedeck's letter is dated 28 May, but Duesberg says he received it only recently.) Zedeck's letter did not explain the basis for the decision. However, the Faculty Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures for the Berkeley Campus does not mention reporting potential conflicts of interest in published papers.

The ruling does not mean Berkeley approves of the paper. "The university's investigation did not undertake to evaluate the merits of your research," Zedeck writes, "but concluded that your right to publish and disseminate your views is protected under the umbrella of academic freedom." A UC Berkeley spokesperson says the university does not comment on personnel issues.

Duesberg says he feels "exonerated" by the university's decision. He made his case to Reingold at a 7 May meeting at which he was accompanied by Berkeley's faculty ombudsperson. His lawyer also wrote Zedeck a letter in his defense.

Geffen disagrees. "This finding does not exonerate Duesberg," he says. "The language of the ruling makes that clear." Geffen, who was notified of the outcome, says he respects the university's decision but believes that "it was worth raising the issue, in any case, and putting it on the record."

Truth Revealed: The Gulf Coast Oil Spill Conspiracy

Oil Spill = Illuminati's Covert War on America

May 24, 2010  by Henry Makow, Ph.D. 

We think of war in terms of missiles and tanks and bombs. But a far superior form of war is to disguise attacks as false flag terrorism like 9-11, natural disaster like Katrina or an accident like the April 20 BP oil spill.

This way the victim is not aware of his attacker, and cannot take countermeasures.

The parallels between the oil spill and Katrina are uncanny. In both cases, the American Gulf coast was attacked, and the Presidential response was deemed tardy and ineffective. In the case of Katrina, the levees were blown up 12 hours after the hurricane had passed.

The "tell" is the failure of the Obama Administration to declare a State of Emergency and take immediate action to stop the gusher. It is hard to believe that an Administration facing a national election in six months would sit on its hands while oil poured onto America's Gulf coast. Last week, Obama was announcing a commission to study the causes while  failing to address the blow-out itself.

It is hard to believe that an industry which hosts hundreds of deep sea oil wells has not developed measures for such an eventuality. Hard to believe that the richest and most technologically advanced country in the world appears helpless in the face of this disaster.

The optics for Obama are terrible. Even the Huffington Post, which is a Murdoch-sponsored Obama cheering section could not hide its exasperation and impatience with Obama's tepid response.

But the Rothschilds treat Presidents like Kleenex -- use and throw away. Every President in my lifetime has left office in some kind of disgrace. The purpose is to demoralize Americans and make them lose faith in their government and democracy.

Who owns BP? The Rothschilds. Who owns Barack Obama? The Rothschilds. How hard would it be to stage this accident and then ensure a failed response?

CONTEXT

The BP oil spill must be seen in the context of an ongoing covert war against America waged by the Illuminati, i.e. the Masonic Jewish central banking cartel led by the Rothschilds.

Concurrent with the BP blow-out, world financial markets are gyrating because European banks again are being bailed out by taxpayers to the tune of over a trillion dollars. The loans are to Greece, Portugal etc. but the creditors are the German and French banks owned by the Rothschild etc. whose stocks are soaring again. The loans were created out of thin air but the taxpayers will repay them with their freedom and prosperity.

Just six month ago, we were in the throes of a man-made swine flu pandemic that required mass inoculation.
Just 14-20 months ago, we were wrestling with the world financial crisis caused by the banks deliberately giving inflated mortgages to insolvent people.

Lest we forget, on Sept. 11 2001, the Illuminati attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and blamed it on "Muslim terrorists." How stupid do they think we are?

We are under constant attack by Illuminati bankers and their lackeys in government and media. The two world wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, are all forms of Illuminati attack on America.

They also attack our moral and social fabric by promoting sexual "liberation" (promiscuity), feminism, homosexuality, public obscenity, violence, pedophilia and porn in music and in the mass media in general.

So why do we look at an ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico as if it were occurring in isolation?

THE KEY TO OUR EXASPERATION

The explanation can be found in a book that we have been trained Pavlov-style to reject. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the work of a Jewish Masonic secret society. Caught red-handed, they attempted to confuse the issue of world domination with anti-Semitism. The vast majority of Jews is not aware, let alone in favor of this plot for world government by a small "Jewish" financial elite and their Masonic allies.

In the Protocols, the author, who I suspect was Lionel Rothschild, writes that their goal is: "To wear everyone out by dissensions, animosities, feuds, famine, inoculation of diseases, want, until the Gentiles sees no other way of escape except by appeal to our money and our power." ( Protocol 10)

"We will so wear out and exhaust the Gentiles by all this that they will be compelled to offer us an international authority, which by its position will enable us to absorb without disturbance all the governmental forces of the world and thus form a super-government." ( Protocol 5)

CONCLUSION

We will continue to be pummeled until we recognize this long-term undeclared war and expose the enemy.

Desperate times require desperate measures. The only solution to this mess is to nationalize the Fed, and disown that portion of the national debt that was created out of thin air. Then, we must break up the media cartels and ensure that elections are publicly funded. The power of the Israel lobby must be broken and all pro-Zionist candidates renounced. (Zionism is a tool of the bankers.)

Frankly, I am not optimistic. Our leaders -- political, cultural and economic -- are all beholden to the current self destructive system. And we are not in the habit of taking strong medicine.

But if we don't, we will sink deeper into a malignant web fashioned by Satanists.

-Dr. Henry Makow

A Sincere Message to Seth Kalichman and like minded people

Posted at QA, Questioning AIDS Forum

by positivenegative, June 3, 2010

It's a crying shame you hold your position in the face of too much honest and sincere conversation where people, whether you agree or not, are trying to fight for their lives. You're deliberate and arrogant viewpoint is an insult to people who just want answers. Most importantly you insult yourself.

When I first got diagnosed I read your book because I did not want to deny anything. I wanted all the information I could possible have and I sincerely took your words to heart but in the final equation you're judgmental and accusatory attitude makes me lose any respect I might have had for you.


If you could only take one ounce of genuine interest that many "dissidents" have you just might have a chance to redeem yourself but your obvious criticism of "denialists" and especially those who actually have to deal with their mortality lacks kindness and most certainly compassion.

You're like George Bush bringing democracy by the barrel of a gun. Your hardcore insistence is relentless and very unfortunate indeed. If you are truly on the right path, especially as a psychologist, you are simply manipulating people in the guise of helping them and is just plain rude. Everyone dies and so will you.

You're self-righteous in the face of way too many honest questions. Don't try to take away peoples liberty to investigate and ask questions as if the hiv/aids issue is locked down and sealed asthe truth. It's obvious that this issue is far more complicated than you have ever given credit.

If dissidents and denialists are so wrong then why wouldn't you practice compassion and understanding for those who may truly be ignorant? If someone came to you with any other disease, would you treat them in the same way as you do those who are affected by hiv/aids or better yet, any other life threatening disease?

If you noticed someone on the side of the road who just crashed their car and possibly broke their back wouldn't you try to stabilize them and help them with their confusion or would you criticize them because they want to get up and walk?

Stop being so righteous. It's unbecoming. That's a good word for you. Unbecoming. The world is becoming but for whatever reason, whether it be money or maybe it's just an immature emotional state you are addicted to I don't know.

Be that as it may please just try to change your appeal if you really do care about people as you claim. It's time for you to change your tune. In my view you aren't helping anyone and you are only embarrassing yourself.

It's time for you to realize that you are the denialist. I'm not even asking you to agree or disagree but rather just consider the experience of so many people who are living life for years and year without drugs. Yes, people get sick and die, like in the beginning of the AIDS crisis with AZT, and obvious other issues and co-factors you simply just can't deny unless you're the one in need of help.

How can you just tow a line by standing on one side criticizing the perceived other side? There is a lot of gray area and the people you criticize are more open to scientific inquiry then you have ever demonstrated. Don't let pride get the best of you, that is of course, if you have a best of you.

Even Luc Montagnier plays his tune out of both sides of his mouth. Why can't you? Stop being so hard core. Uh-gain, it's unbecoming.

Hotel Srbija in Vrsac

Who follows my blog knows already that I love big hotel projects built during the time of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And now I discovered one more jewel to share in this space: the Hotel Srbija in Vrsac.

Vrsac is anyway an interesting city that is worth a visit because of its picturesque old town, the beautiful view from the Vrsac tower and the splendid vineyards in the surrounding.

And in the center of the city stands this huge building made in concrete!

The generous main entrance (picture from the hotel's website)

Usually when I visited hotels like that they were really run down or even closed.War, NATO-bombings and a difficult economic situation made it impossible for some region to keep big hotels open and to suitably renovate them. here in Vrsac it's a little different: the city makes a big effort to keep it a tourist destination, in the "millenium center" big sport events take place (like Eurobasket i 2005) and the strong vine industry brings anyway some prosperity to the city.

So the Hotel Srbija keeps up with comfortable 85 rooms and 6 suites, conference rooms and representative halls.

I like how in buildings like that, concrete is used in a rather sculptural way, the building looks like an insect, a well designed composition.

Pictures taken by Nemanja Mitrovic

Hotel Website http://www.hotelsrbija.co.rs/
Vsrac Touristic Website http://www.vrsac-tourism.com

Other fantastic Hotels from the SFRJ: 
Hotel Narcis in Strpce (Serbia, Kosovo and Metohija)
Hotel Palas in Mojkovac (Montenegro)
Hotel in Canj (Montenegro)
Hotel Centar in Igalo (Montenegro)
Hotel Petrus in Paracin (Serbia, Pomoravlje)