4 of 8 - What's in a Word? Dissidence, 'Denial,' and Health on a Poly Planet - Part Four - From The G Tales

You call me ‘promiscuous,’ I call you ‘dishonest,’ a poly person tells the average person who believes that monogamy is the only natural way to love.

You call me ‘denialist,’ I call you ‘believer,’ a dissident person tells the average person who believes that HIV is the only cause of AIDS.

When you call AIDS Dissidents by their own name you exercise leadership in the sexual freedom movement.

Alternative lovestyle communities ignore AIDS Dissidence at their own peril.

From private conversations

Part Four

 “What about the scientific verification,” I asked G as we continued the conversation.  I was curious about whether or not the initial experiments about HIV as cause of AIDS had been repeated in other laboratories.  “There was none, you said.  What did other scientists say?”

“Many said nothing--continued the rat race in their cubbyholes.  But that’s where ‘renegade’ Duesberg comes into play.  He insisted on repeating the experiments, applied for grants to do so and was turned down over and over.  He has all possible qualifications.”

“Ouch!  That must have hurt him a lot.  And what did he do then?”

“He went public about being denied the money to do the verifying research.  He denounced this as a political plot.  And he became a dissenter.  Why?”

“I guess I can tell, G, but tell me . . . “

“Because of course,” she continued, now in a more passionate tone, “if you’re an honest scientist you cannot accept as true a hypothesis that you’ve proposed to verify over and over--only to find out that an a priori decision has been made that there will be no such multilateral verification by laboratory experiment.”

“Got it.  But let’s go back to Montagnier.  Why do you think he became interested in oxidation?”

“Because over the years he realized that alone HIV does not debilitate the immune system to the point of causing what manifests as the syndrome of AIDS.  There has to be a prior debilitation of the immune function for an infection to become chronic and therefore cause AIDS.  And oxidation often has this debilitating effect.”

“Ok.  So to go back to your process, what did you do when you found out what Montagnier had been doing?”

“I was overjoyed.  Now I knew how much hostility there was in my ‘home’ community to dissident views of AIDS.  Greensocks had been the unexpected lesson.  I have been told I was naïve on that occasion.  I cannot disagree with that.  You have to consider that as an American I am really from the West Coast, a place where people tend to take the Washington Consensus and other East Coast mentalities with a grain of salt.  I could never have imagined that in a city as cosmopolitan as New York people would be so ignorant of the AIDS Dissidence Movement.  I had known about it for years, while I still practiced various forms of safer sex because I believe in sparing one’s immune system any unnecessary, excessive work.  Yet major poly leaders ignored the whole scientific problem and asked for ‘evidence’ only after the fact.”

“Which fact, G,” I interrupted, “if I may?”

“The fact of publicly humiliating me for bringing it up at a bookstore reading where I’d been invited to read from Eros.”

“Ok,” I said faintly, waiting for more.

“So” G continued, “by virtue of the Nobel Prize, Montagnier was now back in the game.  And this gave me a good reason to integrate his view point, as it had evolved over the decades, into my discussion in the book Gaia.”

“Which was going to press right there and then.”

“Yes,” G confirmed.

“Let me ask you this: Did you feel that the American public, and polys in particular, were aware of Montagnier’s perspective?”

“Unfortunately, the mainstream press only spoke of the decision of the Swedish Academy in terms of national pride.  Why had Gallo not been included?  Was this fair?  Hadn’t they been in it together?  There was no mention of scientific differences between the two researchers.”

“So you did your revisions.  Did the press welcome them?”

“Yes,” G replied, “they were very accommodating.  I kept telling them that I was aware of resistance to dissident ideas in the ‘niche’ audience, and this required fairness and a carefully crafted argumentation.  I remember asking for one extra week to make sure I did a good job.”

“So then, when the book was released, did you present it in New York?  Did you consider the release a good occasion to open up the topic for discussion again?  To offer clarification and a more articulate perspective on your position and what motivated you to engage in this kind of science-studies, systems-theory research?”

“Yes, that was my first thought.”  

End of Part Four, G Tale # 5

Disclaimer:  This Tale does not constitute medical advice in any way.  Readers are invited to consult their own healers and health care providers. 

References: For scholarly and scientific references to contents and theories referred to in this dialog, refer to Gaia & the New Politics of Love, whose bibliography lists all sources involved.  

5 of 8 - What's in a Word? Dissidence, 'Denial,' and Health on a Poly Planet - From The G Tales

You call me ‘promiscuous,’ I call you ‘dishonest,’ a poly person tells the average person who believes that monogamy is the only natural way to love.

You call me ‘denialist,’ I call you ‘believer,’ a dissident person tells the average person who believes that HIV is the only cause of AIDS.

When you call AIDS Dissidents by their own name you exercise leadership in the sexual freedom movement.

Alternative lovestyle communities ignore AIDS Dissidence at their own peril.

From private conversations

Part Five 

 

“Going back to New York with a more complete, more articulate explanation of your position, with a chance for pointed questions and responses, was your first thought,” I reminded G as we resumed the conversation after a pause.

“It sure was,” G confirmed.  “I had a publicist who was doing bookings for me, and the first thing I asked her to do was contact Greensocks again and see if they’d book me for a reading there.  I alerted her to the previous problem, to put out feelers and be cautious.”

“And what happened?”

“The person who does bookings and that store said they’d be happy to have me.  We agreed on a date for the reading and it appeared on the store’s calendar for several weeks, during which I booked my flight and made other travel arrangements.”

“Oh, interesting.  Were you looking forward to the reading there?”

“I was.  I know that many people in the initial audience were more flabbergasted by how I was treated than by what I had read.  I felt I must muster the courage to go there again.”

“Weren’t you afraid?”

“A bit.  I was a bit ‘frobbly’ as we say in poly.”

“I can understand that.”

“Thank you.”

“How did it go?”

“It didn’t go.”

“What do you mean?”

“A couple of weeks before the reading we found a message in the email.  It was copied to several persons involved in the planning of the event.  It said that the reading would be cancelled because of ‘AIDS denialism,’ which the collective running the store considered ‘very dangerous’.”

“OMG!  That must have felt terrible.  How did you respond?”

“I remained quite self-possessed.  I sought help in writing a clear, direct response.  In it I rejected the accusation.  I explained that if I was a ‘denialist’ then the discoverer of the so called ‘AIDS virus,’ now a Nobel Prize winner, was a ‘denialist’ as well, which put me in good company.  I asked the collective to reconsider.”

Oxidation, Water, Food, and AIDS in Africa: 

Interview with Luc Montagnier

2008 Nobel for HIV Science

Video: courtesy of House of Numbers, by Brent Leung

“Did they?”

“I don’t know that they gave my request any serious consideration.  The difference between dissidence and denialism did not seem to register with them.  In my response I had explained that dissidents see more complexity in AIDS than those in the conventional camp.  Therefore, calling them ‘denialists’ was a misnomer because the word denial implies the opposite of complexity.”

“Makes sense.  What did you do then?”

 “Well, when Greensocks confirmed the cancellation, I realized I was banned in New York for my political/scientific dissidence on AIDS.  I rebooked the reading in a café in New Jersey.  A small crowd came.  Perhaps that was best.  The New York crowd was definitely not ready for an open discussion of the issues implied in this topic.”

“You’re probably right there.  How did you end up launching the book and what was the effect of these precedents?”

“I booked workshops in sex-positive community centers on the West Coast.  I decided to give the book good exposure with a focus on its connection between the Gaian scientific paradigm that emphasizes symbiosis and the ways in which styles of love where amorous resources are shared are symbiotic, and therefore Gaian, as well.  I gave presentations where I focused on these topics rather than the science studies research.”

“But G, were you deluded enough to think that the problem would just go away?  That people would just buy the book and never read it and never raise objections?”

“No.  I write books wishing to be read from cover to cover.  That’s how I read books than make me passionate and from which I learn.”

“So?”

 “So, I was hoping that at some point readers of a certain caliber would come along.  I never doubted the quality of the book.  It definitely is my best so far.  It was written under a powerful inspiration and the publisher was the best I could hope for.  It’s an alluring product, something people want to get when they see it.”

“And did these readers manifest?”

“Yes.  The first was a gay man from the Southwest with a superior education who came out to me as HIV+ in a letter and repeatedly said that I was ‘RIGHT ON’ in everything I said about AIDS.”

“Woooow.  That must have been something to you!”

“Yes.  It made me cry.  It was the best evidence that I had hit a right cord.  I thought of all the suffering the ‘poz’ population endures: when they are not well because of illness, when they are well because of being looked upon as public perils.  Potential criminals whose sexual desires are constructed as ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ one might say.  These people have to walk the Earth in shame, embarrassed to be still around--instead of being celebrated as heroes and heroines of life for having being capable of healing themselves.”

“Now you’re getting a bit rhapsodic, G, as usual--your dramatic side.”

“Ok, ok.”

End of Part Five, G Tale # 5

 

Disclaimer:  This Tale does not constitute medical advice in any way.  Readers are invited to consult their own healers and health care providers. 

References: For scholarly and scientific references to contents and theories referred to in this dialog, refer to Gaia & the New Politics of Love, whose bibliography lists all sources involved.  

6 of 8 - What's in a Word? Dissidence, 'Denial,' and Health on a Poly Planet - From The G Tales

You call me ‘promiscuous,’ I call you ‘dishonest,’ a poly person tells the average person who believes that monogamy is the only natural way to love.

You call me ‘denialist,’ I call you ‘believer,’ a dissident person tells the average person who believes that HIV is the only cause of AIDS.

When you call AIDS Dissidents by their own name you exercise leadership in the sexual freedom movement.

Alternative lovestyle communities ignore AIDS Dissidence at their own peril.

From private conversations

Part Six

“What else happened around this book worthy of note?  Anybody else extolled its virtues?” I asked as G and I continued our conversation.

“Well, Deborah Anapol, a founder of the poly movement, read the book and wrote a glowing review.  That made me very happy.  We published it in various places, and are still waiting for Loving More Magazine to live up to the challenge of publishing it also on its pages, perhaps with a disclaimer about the views on AIDS expressed in the book itself.”

“Seems fair.  Anything else?”

“Yes, a few days ago I found a review of the book on Polyamory in the News.  It was scathing.  The usual accusations of ‘denialism’ compounded with a whole bunch of personal attacks.  I was described as a fallen public figure that had become ‘radioactive’ in poly circles after Greensocks and that was now an ‘embarrassment’ to the poly community and movement.”

“Ouch!  How did that feel?”

“Awful,” G said.

“I bet.  Did you respond?”

“Well, by that time I had learned what kind of strength I had to muster to stand behind my statements.  Besides, I now knew that when a reader’s mind was open, the book made its positive effect.  I responded to the accusations and waited for the owner of the website to post my comment.”

“Right on!” I cheered her.

“The comment was not exactly gentle.  Yet he posted it.”

“How did that feel?”

“Felt good.  I realized that now the ball was rolling.  That there was a dialog, a conversation, a debate, an open way to deal with the intellectual/ideological conflict that has been dividing the community.  I know that many polys question the government’s narrow views of AIDS and of public and personal health in general.  However, the current poly leadership--perhaps in an attempt to posture as more ‘respectable’--wishes to keep this under wraps.  Finally, the whole thing was unwrapping--unfolding itself.  More comments came, that defended me from personal attacks and pointed to the subtlety of my theoretical perspective as well.  I was happy. ”

“Good for you, G,” I commented.  “That’s the nice part of being poly, no?  Polys typically accede discussion--once you get the ball rolling, they flock in, they are so gregarious, so symbiotic’,” I commented.

“Yes, that’s why I insisted in playing the game. Others told me to leave them alone, move somewhere else, change niche audience altogether.”

“Didn’t you want to do that?”

“Part of me did.  I felt so ostracized, so unheard.  Why would I be telling my friends these things if not because they’re important?  But at least on the East Coast the government’s view definitely prevailed.   A regional divide is there, and I did feel a pull toward the West Coast, where I always feel more at home.”

“Is ‘denialism’ more popular there?”  I asked G.

“Wait a minute,” G said, “why are you still calling it ‘denialism’?  That’s the problem, remember?  Dissidence,” and her voice got more passionate as she asked that question. 

“Right, what’s in a name?  Can things change just because they’re called by another name?” I asked.

“Think of Lani and Loraine’s book, Bi Any Other Name?”

“Oh yeah, I remember it” I said, “it started the bisexual movement back in the 1990s.”

“Correct.  How did it do that?”

“By calling bisexuals by our own name,” I replied.

“By our own name . . . “ G reflected.  “What’s in a name? Very simple: a name allows a discriminated against, a marginalized, an invisible group to define itself on its own terms.”

“Ok.  So what I hear is that we need to call dissidents dissidents because that’s how they call themselves?”

“Exactly!” G exclaimed.

“I get it,” I continued.  “It’s a bit like calling polys polys and not promiscuous persons.”

“Yes, calling gay men gay men and not ‘faggots.’  Italian-Americans Italian-Americans and not ‘dagos.’  African-Americans African-Americans and not ‘niggahs.’  Using the dignified, self-respecting names marginalized groups chose to describe themselves, instead of the insulting words that injure and silence them.”

“So ‘dissidence’ and ‘denialism’ are not the same, even though they are two different ways to describe the same movement?” I asked G.

“Well, if you are poly and somebody calls you promiscuous, aren’t you going to feel silenced, offended?  What if someone called the polyamory movement the ‘promuscuity movement’?  Would you feel comfortable being part of that?”

“No.  I would respond by saying that we, polys have a right to define ourselves in our own terms.  We cannot accept a definition based on a negative social stereotype.”

“Well, the same applies to the AIDS Dissidence Movement, doesn’t it?  Don’t you think that dissidents have been marginalized enough to want to be called by their own name?”

“Ok, ok.  I get that.  But how would you define Dissidence then?”

“Dissidence is a political--an ideological form of resistance to an institutionally imposed silence on the questions science hasn’t answered yet.  It is a form of science in itself: it produces knowledge that moves in the direction of the paradigm shift we need to create if we want to make peace with our generous hostess, Gaia, the Earth,” G said in a passionate, vehement tone.

“But then some compare what they call ‘AIDS Denialism’ with denial of the Holocaust.  Suppose it turns out there is really nothing else to AIDS than an infection by a virus called HIV--which for some reason cannot be neutralized by a vaccine or an antibiotic.  Suppose it’s just as simple as that.  Then, wouldn’t they have a point?” I asked G, by now a bit impatient, nervous.

End of Part Six, G Tale # 5

Disclaimer:  This Tale does not constitute medical advice in any way.  Readers are invited to consult their own healers and health care providers. 

References: For scholarly and scientific references to contents and theories referred to in this dialog, refer to Gaia &the New Politics of Love, whose bibliography lists all sources involved.  

7 of 8 - What's in a Word? Dissidence, 'Denial,' and Health on a Poly Planet - From The G Tales

You call me ‘promiscuous,’ I call you ‘dishonest,’ a poly person tells the average person who believes that monogamy is the only natural way to love.

You call me ‘denialist,’ I call you ‘believer,’ a dissident person tells the average person who believes that HIV is the only cause of AIDS.

When you call AIDS Dissidents by their own name you exercise leadership in the sexual freedom movement.

Alternative lovestyle communities ignore AIDS Dissidence at their own peril.

From private conversations

Part Seven

“If AIDS was just as simple as the Swine Flu, don’t you think that a simple vaccine would have been produced already?  Don’t you remember when we talked about Echinacea?” G asked as we resumed the conversation.

“Yeah, you were flabbergasted that the government would not openly recommend this indigenous remedy,” I commented.

“The vaccine was produced immediately, remember?  So quickly that I felt a time-tested indigenous remedy would be safer if one used it ahead of time, as a preventative.”

“Yes G,” I said.  “It took a few weeks to produce a flu vaccine, and it’s been twenty five years since the beginning of AIDS,” I reflected. “One can’t be too surprised that scientists--as well as a large portion of the general public--dissent from the simple explanations that are the basis for comparing AIDS Dissidence with denial of the Holocaust.  Is that your point?”

“Exactly!” G exclaimed.  “Do you know what dissidents call those who believe in the official explanations?”

“No.  What do they call ‘em?”

“Believers,” G said.

“Believers--as in a church?” I asked.

“Yeah,” G said.  “Believers as in a church, because dissenters realize official science is full of dogmas that serve to keep the power structures in place.”

“But that’s quite offensive,” I commented.

“Just as offensive as being called a ‘denialist’ when you’re a dissenter.”

“Point taken, G,” I replied, “but the problem seems to be that these two groups are not hearing each other--they’re not communicating.”

“Correct.”

“How could they possibly communicate better?” I asked.

“One way is offer them scapegoats, sacrificial lambs, naïve foreigners like myself who end up rocking the boat.”

“And that’s been done apparently.  What else?”

“Another way is to make comparisons on a different register.  For example, one can compare ‘believers’ to flat-Earthists back in the Renaissance, or to those who still deny global warming today.”

“How does that help?” I asked.

“It helps to get the point across that dissenters are widely aware of the historical existence of AIDS. That they know its effects have been and continue to be felt by the vast majority of the population, either because they have succumbed to the epidemic, or because their loved ones have, or because their personal and public lives have been affected in significant ways.  There is an entire new generation whose sexual, emotional, and personal lives have been organized around AIDS and the fear of ‘getting it.’  There is a healthy ‘poz’ population whose lives take place under the aegis of being considered both an anomaly and a public peril.”

“What’s your point G?”

“The point is that calling things by their name is science, it is a form of knowledge that helps to unveil the direction we need to take if we want a problem to be solved.”

“I still don’t get it, G.”

“Those in the hard sciences often do not have the humanistic skills to bring their voice to the wider public in incisive, respectful ways.  It is up to those in the humanities to do that.  For example, this young man, Brent Leung, a documentary film director, journeyed all over the world to interview scientists who’ve worked on AIDS, of all schools and perspectives.  House of Numbers, his film is called.  He also interviewed healthy ‘poz’ people, including now-adult ’AIDS babies,’ who’ve refused conventional treatments and are absolutely vital and healthy.  Don’t you think that if we want to find a solution to the AIDS problem, we should encourage science to go there?  To find out how these ‘poz’ people made it?  How they kept vital and healthy?  How they healed themselves?”

House of Numbers, by Brent Leung, Trailer

“Ok.  So what I hear you saying is that AIDS Dissidence is a form of science, that it indicates possible paths authentic scientific inquiries would explore.”

“Yes, and you see that silencing all that effort as ‘denialism,’ really denies its value, its potential to produce knowledge that is very valuable, especially to those, like us, who practice love in alternative ways.  Dissident science produces knowledge that helps in understanding the complexity of immune-related syndromes especially in relation to environmental problems, like contamination of food, water, and air supply.”

“So would you say that polys and other sex-positive people ignore AIDS Dissidence at our own peril?”

“I’d certainly agree with that.  Plus,” G continued, “by now, this movement includes several world renown scientists, some honored with a Nobel Prize, and has produced countless self-funded experiments, conventions, and other knowledge producing venues.”

“Oh.  For example?” I asked.

“The latest ‘Rethinking AIDS Convention’ in Oakland, Ca, November 2009.  Countless books, articles, investigative reports.  The latest important name is Dr. Henry Bauer, of Virginia Tech, who recapitulates the whole Dissidence theory, saga, and data, in its fierce logic and relates it to the concerns for global health and ecology that dominate climate change activism today.”

“Woooow.”

“As polys,” she continued, “we ignore the AIDS Dissidence Movement at the risk of becoming complicit with the institutional project of reducing our wonderful ability to expand love beyond monogamy to what, in mainstream society, registers as mere ‘promiscuity’.”

“What do you mean?  Explain.”

End of Part Seven, G Tale # 5

Disclaimer:  This Tale does not constitute medical advice in any way.  Readers are invited to consult their own healers and health care providers. 

References: For scholarly and scientific references to contents and theories referred to in this dialog, refer to Gaia & the New Politics of Love, whose bibliography lists all sources involved.  

8 of 8 - What's in a Word? Dissidence, 'Denial,' and Health on a Poly Planet - From The G Tales

You call me ‘promiscuous,’ I call you ‘dishonest,’ a poly person tells the average person who believes that monogamy is the only natural way to love.

You call me ‘denialist,’ I call you ‘believer,’ a dissident person tells the average person who believes that HIV is the only cause of AIDS.

When you call AIDS Dissidents by their own name you exercise leadership in the sexual freedom movement.

Alternative lovestyle communities ignore AIDS Dissidence at their own peril.

From private conversations

Part Eight

“You believe you are a leader in the Polyamory Movement, correct?” asked G as we resumed the conversation.

“Yes,” I replied.

“Yet when you are calling dissidents denialists you are not exercising leadership in the sexual freedom realm.”

“Why not?”

“How would you feel if all of a sudden by some specious misnomer you found you were a leader in the Promiscuity Movement instead?”

“I wouldn’t want to be a leader in that movement, of course.”

“Right.  You got it.  Wouldn't that misrepresentation of who you are to the world produce a barrier in communication?”

“Yes, it would put me in a place where even affirming my right to exist is a problem, let alone delivering my possibly important message.”

“Now you’re getting it,” G replied, “but there is more to that,” she continued. 

“I’m listening,” I said.

“Health and love are related.  How we practice love has an effect on our health, and how we keep our health has an effect on how we love.  This applies at the individual, the community, and the planetary level, would you agree?”

“Yeah?” I hesitated, not sure what G was getting at. 

“Well, the current interpretation of AIDS has kept the world locked in fear for decades.  Think of those sex players in the younger generation who’ve never experienced fluid-bonded sex.”

“Ouch!” I said.

“Ouch!”  G repeated.  “You know how rarely I fluid-bond.  And yet, the most remote ever memory of what it feels like, of the complete communion and interpenetration that happens when one makes love freely and all the fluids are exchanged, is what keeps me wanting to stay alive and healthy--so that, if the type of relatedness that warrants fluid-bonding ever arises again, I can do it at no risk for others or myself.”

“I can’t disagree with you on this one G,” I said, “and I don’t know that anyone who has experienced fluid-bonding in a positive way honestly can.”

“So if we can construct, in rigorous scientific terms, another theory of AIDS that interprets fluid-bonding as a message of love--a message of health, then we can use this scientific interpretation as another way to demonstrate how significant Gaia theory is in relation to the diseases that affect us all.”

“Gaia is quite tired of us especially when we don’t seem to listen to the message of her illness and discomfort as manifest in climate change and global warming,” I commented.

“Precisely,” G said, “if we can better learn the arts of loving that allow us to practice fluid-bonding as a form of holistic health for ourselves and our erotic communities, then we can make Gaia more comfortable with our presence, because we will be busy practicing these arts in their various forms rather than frantically consuming products that do not make us happy and contribute to the excessive production that causes climate instability to begin with.”

“What I hear you saying is another version of your sound-bite, ‘a world where it is safe to love is a world where it is safe to live.’  In other words, if we can enlist science to make the world safer for the arts of loving then it will become a world safer to live in as well.”

“Yeah! You got it!” giggles G. 

G and I finally giggle together.  This has been a heck of a conversation.  I feel exhausted.  But then, isn’t that the essence of being poly?  Endless conversations, debates, open heart disagreements, and that’s how we become cohesive as a movement and we grow. 

“What's in a name?  You said.”

“Right.  What’s in a name? 

“The AIDS Dissidence Movement has a name.”

“G, do you mean that calling movements, entities, people by their name is science, it is a form of knowledge we owe others different from ourselves?”

“Yes.”

“Let’s get back to square one then, and begin to see what the argument of your book looks like if the AIDS Dissidence Movement gets to be called by its own name.”

“Let’s.”

“Thank you, G, it’s always good to talk to you.  You never seem to give up on thinking with your own head.”

“Sometimes I get headaches,” she giggles.

“I’m sure you do,” we giggle together.  “What do you do about it?”

“I use what my friend Alan calls ‘woo woo’ remedies.  I get a massage, some craniosacral therapy.  I meditate, swim, walk.  What about you, my dear, my patient friend, are you ready for the holidays?”

“Yes, G, now I am.” 

“I looked at Gaia’s waters today, she’s still patient, and she sends her blessings.”

End of Part Eight, G Tale # 5

End of Tale

A former AIDS patient speaks out on TV, Atheatos Kosmos

Maria Papagiannidou, author of Goodbye AIDS

Disclaimer:  This Tale does not constitute medical advice in any way.  Readers are invited to consult their own healers and health care providers. 

References: For scholarly and scientific references to contents and theories referred to in this dialog, refer to Gaia & the New Politics of Love, whose bibliography lists all sources involved.