1 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 One

It’s the Holiday Season and G’s classes are almost over.  “This is when the exciting part of my work begins,” she tells me on the phone.  “Why?”

“Well, in this case, for example, I have to fend off all the accusations of ‘denialism’ my latest book earned me.  I get to be called ‘radioactive’ by those in my own community, my fluid-bonding tales get mistaken for irresponsible behavior, and the political dissidence I present in relation to health science, immunity, and infection gets mistaken for some kind of generic denial that AIDS ever existed or that it affected our queer communities at all.”

“You got yourself in trouble again, G,” I respond.  “I can’t leave you alone for a minute and you manage to stir up some controversial mess around yourself.”

“This time I really didn’t do it on purpose,” she replies.  “It was upon me before I knew it and I actually got tempered by last year’s events and handled it quite well.”

“Good for you,” I say.  “Are you sure you don’t need any help?”

“I need lots of help, and I’m getting it, many are coming to my rescue.  And you can pitch in as well.”

“Tell me what it’s about first.”

“OK.  Well, you remember last year when Poly Pride invited me to read in Bluewich Village, at Greensocks Bookstore, from my memoir Eros?  I had contacted the store first, then a whole panel of poly writers came together.  And, on the spur of the moment, I decided to read from the chapters where I describe my shock when I first heard that the cause of AIDS was still uncertain, that clouds of doubt were gathering on the official hypothesis, and that when the brunt of this impacted me, I could not get any sleep for two nights and felt a bit like a philistine, wondering when I had stopped asking questions?”

 
“Yeah, I remember how humiliated you felt when you were told that the organization would publicly distance itself from the content of your reading, and then realized it went well beyond that, publicly decrying you and branding your works as dangerous to civil society and public health.”

“Right, and I also felt very bad, because, in the same way that I was shocked when I first heard about the International AIDS Dissidence Movement, several people in the audience were shocked as well--some were speakers that day, and had lost close relatives to AIDS.  And obviously I realized that my choice had ruined their day.  I got a vague sense of how long it would take for the community to even begin to metabolize the content of what I read.  And I was mostly concerned about taking attention away from the keynote speaker of the day--who was especially hurt--with the effect that the mutual admiration we had for each other’s work all of a sudden evaporated as we became positioned on opposite ends of the controversy.”

“You were especially concerned about her.  All right, then what?  Is this all?”

“No, no, of course not, there is a lot more to the story.  Are you interested?  Ready?  Tell me if it’a a good time for us to talk.”

“Sure, now you made me curious--go ahead.”

“Well, a whole profusion of email apologies ensued after that day, including mine.  The main accuser was never heard from in that context though.  I did feel the brunt of public humiliation for a while, until a Poly Leadership Summit was organized and I participated.  The whole episode was not touched upon again directly, even though, I felt, it was an undertow of tension below the surface.”

“Ok.”


End of Part One, G Tale # 5

Oxidation, Water, Food, and AIDS in Africa

Interview with Luc Montagnier

2008 Nobel Laureate in HIV Science

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.  

2 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 Two

“Well, at the time of the Poly Summit I was finishing the Gaia book, remember?” G asked.

“Yes G,” I replied, as we continued our long winded conversation.

“I already had a contract, an established text, which went into the ‘dissidence’ versus ‘denialism’ controversy in the context of global ecology and health.  In this book, I explained the whole issue in a lot more detail.  It wasn’t just an autobiographical impression of my shock at the impact of the new ideas on me.  It was really a full fledged discussion of how AIDS and other immunological diseases and syndromes (including cancer for example), are interpreted in very different ways depending on the scientific paradigm and perspective used to examine them.  For example, from an allopathic perspective, where health is viewed as a war against disease, one looks at AIDS as a result of infection, and focuses on the infectious agent believed to be at cause.  From a holistic perspective, health is viewed as a result of systemic balance in one’s inner and outer landscape, and so one looks at AIDS as a result of immunodeficiency caused by air, water, and food pollution, stress, fear, and other factors that affect body ecology.”

“Sure, I remember us talking about that.  Ok.”

“Well, as the book was going to press, the discoverer of HIV, French scientist Luc Montagnier, was awarded the Nobel Prize.”

“Oh really?” I exclaimed.

“Yes, it happened simultaneously,” G confirmed.

“And how did you feel about that?  Didn’t it get you to think that maybe the allopathic hypothesis was right after all?  That the dissenters were really just ‘denialists’ who were up to no good?  That perhaps you had been accused and humiliated with just cause? I know you tend to respect the decisions of the Swedish Academy.”

“I do.  And to be honest with you, some of that feeling was there.  I had no experience of infection or even of partners with infection.  I had a roommate who was HIV+ at one point, perfectly healthy, but then that was just one case I could bear witness to.”

“What did you do?”

“I looked up Montagnier on the web immediately.  I had known about him from day one, because when the whole panic about AIDS broke, I used to hang out with a bunch of French expats who were scientists.  They were my social circle, and, when the American scientist Robert Gallo claimed victory in the discovery of the cause of AIDS, they felt a bit slighted in their national pride, wishing that due credit be given to their compatriot as well.” 

“Right, but that did not mean that Gallo and Montagnier did not agree on the cause or the method?”

“I wasn’t sure then.  The extent of the difference in their philosophy had not been quite apparent to me.  I frantically looked up Montagnier.  Found out he was now working on oxidation, writing books on antioxidants, the remedies that holistic healers recommend to those whose excessive stress damages their body’s system of self-defense.  ‘Woooooooow!’ I thought.  Then I reread Montagnier’s scientific papers: there were two, published at about the same time as those Gallo had published on Science.  Papers that ended up constituting the ONLY scientific evidence of the HIV hypothesis for decades, since all laboratory experiments designed to either refute or corroborate it were banned as ‘dangerous’.”

“Banned as ‘dangerous’?  Why so?” I asked, surprised.

“Good question.  Dissidents suspect that the National Institute of Health was very happy with the ‘solution’ Gallo proposed, which was also good business for pharmaceutical companies who could manufacture medical drugs designed to combat the presumed viral cause, and establish medical protocols that would make these drugs mandatory for anyone with the virus in question--even when perfectly healthy.”

“Ouch . . . . sounds pretty dangerous to me.”

“Sure does.  Gets worse.  That was also the time, remember, when awareness of impending ecological disaster was growing in environmental science circles.  All of a sudden, environmentalism was no longer about local problems: how to keep our good neighborhood neat, how to make sure the landfill ended up located somewhere else.  It was now becoming a global awareness that if the switch to a non-fossil fuel economy wasn’t made on time, we would all go under—that the Earth would turn into a scorching hell.  There was this sense that all research moneys and energies should be invested in figuring out how to replace oil.”

“Aha!  Makes sense.  But . . . how did you know about that?”

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

End of Part Two, G Tale # 6 

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.  

3 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 Three

“Well, I told you,” G said as we continued the conversation, “I knew about global warming back then in the 1980s. I was a foreign graduate student at the University of California, Riverside, which had the largest Soil and Environmental Science department in the nation at that point, and the crowd I hung out with was a bunch of post-docs who did that kind of research. I used to not want to believe what they told me myself. Do you think it was fun to learn that we were all going to be cooked unless the switch was made quickly and with full resources for that kind of green-tech research. I was the only one with a kid in this whole group. I liked modernity, I liked gadgets, I liked to drive my own car, I liked consuming nice products, and yet . . . ”

“Wait a minute” I replied, “I’m sure you were not the only one to resist the idea that now all research resources and efforts would be devoted to finding ways to eliminate the need for oil.”

“Right, I wasn’t alone--now you’re getting to it. Oil companies, oil tycoons, automobile makers, and all of the elites that got rich from the black gold were also very unhappy at that prospect. If there ever was a way for us to invent an oil-free society and economy, they wanted to make sure nobody found out.”

“Ok now,” I said. I was feeling a bit confused. “And how does that actually relate to AIDS?”

“Well, awareness of impending global disaster was growing in environmental research circles. They had good reasons to demand more funds for their research. What was a better way to divert attention from that necessity than generalized panic about a viral threat, a new killer disease that was caused by a subvisible pathogen--a virus, as it were?”

“Wait a minute, do you mean that the San Francisco outbreaks were engineered on purpose?” I asked, resentfully.

“No, of course not. But the rush to look for infectious agents was--and that’s where the difference between Gallo and Montagnier comes into play.”

“Sounds confusing to me,” I commented, impatient. “Explain!”

“Montagnier never claimed that he found the ‘cause’ of AIDS.”

“He didn’t?” I asked, curious again.

“No. As I answered the deluge of messages that ensued the trauma of Greensocks, I reread Montagnier’s 1983-84 papers and I also posted the Gallo papers online in response to a panicky request for ‘evidence’ by the person in New York who had mercilessly humiliated me. As I reread those papers I realized Montagnier simply said that, if the new syndrome turned out to be infectious, and if the infectious agent turned out to be a virus, then HIV (which he called LAV to avoid misleading labels) would be a likely candidate.”

“Is that all he said?”

“Yes.”

“OMG! But then, why wouldn’t he say more? Wouldn’t it help people to know that there was some certainty?”

“To some extent, of course, it would. At that time so little was known that to have a strong reason to advise people to use condoms was a good thing. However, there was a need to verify the results of the experiments by repeating them in other laboratories, equally competent as Montagner’s at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, and Gallo’s at the National Institute of Health, in DC.”

“And didn’t that verification happen?”

“That’s the crux of the problem. It did not.”

“OMG! G, are you sure?”

“Well . . . I’m telling you. I wish it had.”

“And why not?”

“Because Gallo mixed Montagnier’s samples with his own and erased all doubts from the record by declaring to the press that we now knew the cause of AIDS. The pharmaceutical companies and the oil industries colluded to establish the dictum that now any verification experiment would be dangerous because it would instill the seed of the doubt in the public and cause behavior that would result in infection.”

“That doesn’t sound very scientific per se. Nor does it sound trusting that people would behave reasonably,” I commented.

“Of course not. But the reality is that people didn’t know how to behave: you know, sex that is all about turgidity and getting off. No erotic gradation, no tantric energy. Rubbing. Barrier protection as in condoms was the only measure as long as people’s amatory skills were so basic.”

“Right, which is why safer-sex education came along, no?” I offered.

“Yeah, and I jumped right into that back in the early 1990s, with all my bi friends. And that opened up a whole ‘nother realm of erotic expression that was more inclusive and creative, precisely because we now had to invent ways to be ‘safe’.”

End of Part Three, G Tales # 5 

HIV/AIDS Skepticism - Professor Henry H. Bauer's Blog 

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.  

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.