Perplexity on Dr. Rebecca Culshaw Smiths Critique of AIDS and the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment

- January 08, 2026

Rebecca Culshaw explicitly frames contemporary AIDS policies—especially HIV testing and drug campaigns in Black and gay communities—as “one of the worst medical violations of human rights since the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment,” which opens the door to a structured comparison along at least twenty dimensions.rebeccaculshawsmith.substack+1

Structural and ethical similarities

Both target marginalized groups: Tuskegee focused on poor Black sharecroppers; AIDS policy has disproportionately targeted Black and gay populations with coercive or highly pressured testing and treatment regimes.everand+3
Both rely on asymmetrical power: Physicians, public health agencies, and researchers held near‑total informational and institutional power over subjects or patients.wikipedia+2
Both downplayed or distorted informed consent: Tuskegee participants were misled and did not give true informed consent; Culshaw argues HIV‑positive people and at‑risk groups are not given full, balanced information about test reliability and drug toxicity.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih+3
Both reframe experimentation as “care”: Tuskegee participants were told they were being treated for “bad blood”; modern AIDS policies present long‑term ART and PrEP campaigns as pure public health benevolence, even when risk–benefit profiles and alternatives are contested.podcasts.apple+3
Both normalize withholding or skewing alternatives: Tuskegee withheld curative penicillin; Culshaw argues that non‑drug options, different risk interpretations, or refusal of testing/PrEP are systematically delegitimized.journals.ala+3

Both embed racialized control: Tuskegee exploited Black men for data; Culshaw describes the HIV paradigm as “at its heart racist and anti‑gay,” with Black communities heavily surveilled and medicated relative to whites.rebeccaculshawsmith.substack+3
Both construct “model patients”: Tuskegee rewarded compliant participants; AIDS policy celebrates PrEP “ambassadors” and perfectly adherent ART users as behavioral exemplars.substack+3
Both harness stigma to enforce compliance: In Tuskegee, social deference and medical authority muted resistance; in AIDS, the threat of being labeled “irresponsible,” “dangerous,” or “denialist” disciplines questioning of tests and drugs.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih+3
Both generate distrust in medicine: Tuskegee’s revelation became a key driver of Black mistrust of public health; Culshaw warns current HIV policies are seeding a new wave of justified skepticism, especially about government‑promoted drugs.cdc+3
Both are defended with “for their own good” narratives: Tuskegee defenders later argued care wasn’t really available anyway; AIDS officials justify aggressive drugging and surveillance as necessary to “protect vulnerable communities.”unclosetedmedia+3

Scientific narrative and institutional lock‑in

Both involve a dominant paradigm resistant to critique: In Tuskegee, syphilis “natural history” studies were rationalized despite emerging ethics; in AIDS, the HIV‑causes‑AIDS paradigm is treated as untouchable orthodoxy despite modeling and testing anomalies Culshaw highlights.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih+3
Both marginalize dissenting experts: Early critics of Tuskegee were ignored or sidelined; Culshaw herself documents career retaliation after publishing “Why I Quit HIV” and her books questioning the paradigm.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih+3
Both use shifting justifications over time: Tuskegee rationalizations evolved as ethics codes emerged; HIV policy justifications have moved from “imminent death” to chronic management to population‑level prevention while keeping the same basic surveillance/testing machine.podcasts.apple+3
Both convert research questions into settled “facts”: Tuskegee treated its design as scientifically necessary; Culshaw argues that what should be debated (test validity, causation, long‑term drug effects) is presented as beyond discussion.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih+3
Both entangle careers and funding with a contested framework: Tuskegee persisted partly because many careers and institutions depended on it; Culshaw describes an AIDS establishment whose grants, reputations, and NGOs are built on the HIV paradigm and its pharmaceutical products.everand+3

Human rights and risk–benefit inversion

Both invert beneficence and non‑maleficence: Tuskegee knowingly allowed preventable harm; Culshaw argues that toxic ART and PrEP—especially in people with uncertain diagnosis or minimal risk—inflict serious iatrogenic damage under a rhetoric of “care.”journals.ala+3
Both weaponize “standard of care” language: Tuskegee defenders later claimed they followed prevailing norms; AIDS policies today are shielded by guidelines and consensus statements that make questioning them look unethical.thebody+3
Both treat specific populations as experimental fields: In Tuskegee, rural Black men were effectively research material; Culshaw argues contemporary AIDS policy uses Black and gay communities as test beds for mass drugging strategies like life‑long ART and PrEP.wikipedia+3
Both show weak respect for autonomy: Tuskegee participants were misled about diagnosis and options; Culshaw’s “plea to return informed consent” is premised on the idea that many HIV‑labeled people were never given truly free, fully informed choices.cdc+3
Both become cautionary symbols: Tuskegee is now a canonical example of unethical research; Culshaw explicitly casts HIV testing and drug policy as a contemporary Tuskegee, warning that history will judge current practices as a major medical rights violation.rebeccaculshawsmith.substack+3

Perplexity on Dr. Rebecca Culshaw Smiths Critique of AIDS and the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment

Structural and ethical similarities

Discrimination, stigma, and social control

Scientific narrative and institutional lock‑in

Human rights and risk–benefit inversion

Popular Posts in the Last 7 Days

Popular Post in the Last 30 Days

Popular Posts from the Last Year

All Time Most Popular Posts