Perplexity on the implications of Rebecca Culshaw Smith's critique of HIV

 If Rebecca Culshaw’s HIV critique on Substack were factually correct, it would imply that the overwhelming majority of modern AIDS research—potentially tens of thousands of studies and policy frameworks—would require retraction or radical re‑evaluation. Her position is that the connection between HIV and AIDS is unproven or misinterpreted, meaning that almost all virological, pharmacological, and epidemiological work based on that premise would collapse.

Scope of Research Impact

Since the 1980s, more than 300,000 peer‑reviewed papers have been published citing HIV as either the cause or major cofactor of AIDS. These encompass molecular biology, immunology, pharmacology, antiretroviral drug development, epidemiology, vaccine research, and global health policy. If HIV were not the etiologic cause, the chain of inference underlying nearly this entire corpus would be invalidated, necessitating retraction or reinterpretation of most AIDS‑related literature.

Culshaw’s Core Critique

In her 2024–2025 Substack essays, including “AI on Me” and [Correction] The Quality of ‘HIV’ Studies May Be Even Worse Than Ever, Culshaw argues that what is called HIV science relies on circular reasoning, unreliable diagnostic tests, and manipulated statistical pools. She highlights tiny infection counts, inconsistent adherence measures, and “meaningless” viral metrics in contemporary PrEP trials as emblematic of pseudoscientific practices. She further claims that drug trials show self‑reinforcing bias, where modeled efficacy replaces observed data, and that the entire biomedical apparatus profits from what she portrays as a non‑existent virus.

Scientific Consensus Response

Mainstream virology rejects her view. Multiple reviews in PLOS Medicine and PubMed Central characterize AIDS‑denialist arguments as factually false and methodologically flawed, emphasizing that hundreds of independent lines of molecular, clinical, and epidemiological evidence confirm HIV as the cause of AIDS. Critics note that Culshaw’s earlier book Science Sold Out misrepresented data ranges, used discredited sources (such as Peter Duesberg), and misapplied statistical methods.

Estimated Proportion of Retractions

If her premise were validated, virtually every paper assuming HIV causality—from the first identification of the virus in 1983 through present‑day treatment and prevention research—would need to be withdrawn. In practical terms, that would encompass roughly 95–99 percent of existing AIDS literature, affecting public‑health policies, clinical guidelines, and pharmaceutical research worldwide—an unprecedented upheaval in modern biomedical history

Popular Posts in the Last 7 Days

Activation of endogenous retrovirus reverse transcriptase in multiple sclerosis patient lymphocytes by inactivated HSV-1, HHV-6 and VZV

If one assume Rebecca Culshaw's Substack is correct, what were 20 moments in the last 40 ears when scientist should have recognized something was wrong in the HIV/AIDS paradigm?

Perplexity on Rebecca Culshaw Smith, and PrEP as Genocide

Perplexity on the irony of debunking David Ho's HIV research

Perplexity on Rebecca Culshaw and "The Noble Lie"

From Perplexity: Here are 20 ways the pharmaceutical industry should reorient their AIDS efforts based on Rebecca Culshaw’s Substack critique of the HIV paradigm:

Popular Post in the Last 30 Days

Perplexity on Rebecca Culshaw Smith, and PrEP as Genocide

Perplexity on the Nosology of AIDS

Perplexity on David Ho

Perplexity on Rebecca Culshaw, AIDS and CFS

Perplexity on the AIDS paradigm

From Perplexity: Here are 20 ways the pharmaceutical industry should reorient their AIDS efforts based on Rebecca Culshaw’s Substack critique of the HIV paradigm:

New cartoon

Perplexity A.I. on the potential impact of Rebecca Culshaw Smith

Perplexity on Rebecca Culshaw Smith and Fauci's original thinking about AIDS

Popular Posts from the Last Year

Ablashi discusses HHV-6, AIDS, Alzheimer's, and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Oral Kaposi's Sarcoma looks like the Crimson Crescents in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome patients.

Why HIV should be referred to as "a red herring."

Dr. Bhupesh Prusty and Professor Thomas Rudel discuss their HHV-6 research

All Time Most Popular Posts

Dr. Bhupesh Prusty and Professor Thomas Rudel discuss their HHV-6 research

Anthony Fauci was part of the gang that silenced and destroyed Judy Mikovits.

Was Judy Mikovits destroyed because her XMRV work would have ultimately shown HIV is a total fraud?

Is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome the other AIDS epidemic in the gay community?