AIDS denial

Having taken an interest in the evolution/creation "debate" over the past few years (which is to say, having a desire to arm my brain against the pseudo-scientific ramblings of anti-science religious fundamentalist fanatics), one of the curious phenomena I've come across is the notion of HIV/AIDS denial, which is often used by the pro-science side of the debate as another scientific "controversy", like "intelligent design", that has absolutely no evidence in its favor, yet commands a rabid following. I hadn't heard much about it until recently, and had never really speculated on what the motivation could possibly be for trying to deny HIV causes AIDS, but this post over at Aetiology (a wonderful science blog, btw, run by the pHd with perhaps the best mug shot in the scientific universe, Tara Smith) has proven to be very educational. Go through the comments, and prepare for some vile stuff, both in the traditional and intellectual fashion.

The primary perpetrator is a poster named "Michael", who, as best as I can tell, is a homosexual that lost his lover to AIDS, or, as he describes it, to AZT. That had never actually occurred to me, but it makes perfect sense. I had always assumed that these psychotic delusions were the result of some weird manifestation of homophobia, which still may play into it (Michael clearly seems self-loathing, as his graphic depictions of what he purports to have go on in certain homosexual orgies seems to represent), but upon the top of that, it appears that there is actually some belief that homosexuals were targetted with AZT in a holocaust-like campaign of eradication!

Reading through those nearly endless posts is an interesting exercise. Such a strange mix of argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad ignorantium, and argumentum ad infinitum: the endless spewing of personal attacks in order to avoid discussing the evidence, of which the dude is obviously quite ignorant. It's interesting how far they can stretch a simple observation (early treatment of AIDS patients was largely ineffective and in many ways disastrous) into a conflation of all sorts of fucked up assertions.

What interests me more than that insanity is the similarity it bears to many other sorts of anti-reason rhetoric that pollutes the net. The similarities to Creationism are many, but it doesn't stop there. A poster going by the name "futurelegend" astutely puts it as follows:

But also, I think the reasoning behind HIV Deniers and evolution deniers and various breeds of religious nuts is all the same. HIV is unlike anything we have encountered before. People are desperate for news that its not so bad, that 'scientists' have blown it out of proportion, the world really isnt this dark and evil. Its easy to exploit this hope. But the fact of the matter is, this world is dark and evil enough to contain a virus like HIV, and all the lemon juice and vinegar in the world wont stop it. **shrug** Its hard for some people to accept.

So in a way, psychologically it is the same as say, Creationists. We didnt evolve on our own! We arent alone in the universe! Theres a god that made us, and loves us, and if he didnt make us exactly like this book says, maybe that book isnt divinely inspired at all. **shrug** Again, its hard for some people to accept.

It goes further than that, though. You can see a lot of this fucked-up projection and denial in a lot of the conspiracy theorists, such as those that pollute a good blog like Screw Loose Change.

I wish I knew more about the human mind, so that I could penetrate a little better into what causes this behavior, but I can definitely see the same sort of behavior in forum after forum after forum.

I don't know that anyone has ever done a full psychological evaluation of whatever underlying psychological condition is the cause for this sort of behavior, or if these behaviors have ever been scientifically, psychologically, medically connected. Creationists, AIDS deniers, and the Tinfoil Hat Brigade all exhibit the same reality-defeating tendencies to ignore information that's inconvenient to them, the same projection of their own behavior on whoever they're arguing with, and generally tend towards the same argumentative techniques. That can't be a coincidence.