AIDSTruth.org - News

PACHA passes resolution against criminalising HIV transmission

Eduard Grebe — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:27:43 +0000

At its February meeting, the US President’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) passed a resolution calling on the federal government to take a leadership role in eliminating the criminalization of HIV in the U.S. Many scientists and civil society groupings (such as the HIV Prevention Justice Alliance) have long opposed harmful and counterproductive laws that criminalize HIV in the U.S. and elsewhere.

This resolution represents a significant step towards eliminating such laws. Read more about the campaign to end criminalisation of HIV.

Video: Nicoli Nattrass in conversation with Nathan Geffen about her new book "The AIDS Conspiracy: Science Fights Back"

Eduard Grebe — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 15:54:26 +0000

The video below is of AIDSTruth contributors Nicoli Nattrass and Nathan Geffen in conversation at the launch of Prof Nattrass's book "The AIDS Conspiracy: Science Fights Back". It was recorded on Wednesday 30 May 2012 at The Book Lounge in Cape Town. Video courtesy of the Centre for Social Science Research.

Download Video: MP4 / webm

Death by denial: Brian Deer on the believers who continue denying HIV causes AIDS

Eduard Grebe — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:05:11 +0000

Brian Deer writes in The Guardian:

Karri Stokely is a poster girl for a different way to look at health. After receiving an Aids diagnosis in 1996, at the age of 29, she was treated for 11 years with a cocktail of drugs. But then she saw an internet video saying that HIV was a hoax, stopped taking her medicines – and felt terrific.

"I'm not getting any answers from the mainstream as to why I'm healthy, and why my husband is negative, and why I can quit these drugs," she explains in her own video, which is currently being promoted online. "I think it's a crime. It's crimes against humanity."

Her doctor was aghast – HIV treatment is for life. "He looked me right in the eyes and said: 'You have done a very stupid thing, and you will be dead very soon,'" Stokely recalls. "My response to him was: 'That's funny, because right now I'm feeling pretty good.'"

That was in April 2007. She died four years later, so her comments are a postcard from the past. "Karri Stokely passed away on April 27th 2011," explains a website run by London journalist Joan Shenton. "She said she wouldn't go quietly so we are keeping her moving interview below on our homepage."

But Stokely's path (via pneumonia) was already well trodden. Dying in denial is a phenomenon. The first traveller on this path I knew was an American singer, Michael Callen, author of a self-help book, Surviving Aids. It was published by HarperCollins in 1990. Three years later, Mikey died.

Read the whole article.

Remembering Winstone Zulu

Eduard Grebe — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:20:09 +0000

Zambian AIDS activist Winstone Zulu died on 12 October 2011. Zulu was for a time taken in by Thabo Mbeki's AIDS denialism -- and nearly died as a result -- but became a tireless campaigner against denialism and for people living with HIV/AIDS after antiretrovirals restored his health. Below is the Treatment Action Campaign's tribute to Zulu. Also see the Treatment Action Group's statement.

He was a brave AIDS activist who rebelled against Thabo Mbeki's AIDS denialism

14 October 2011

Winstone Zulu, the first Zambian to live openly with HIV and an outspoken proponent for the rights of people with HIV and TB, died on 12 October 2011. The Treatment Action Group (not to be confused with us, the Treatment Action Campaign) has written a moving tribute to Winstone: http://www.treatmentactiongroup.org/winstone-zulu [1]

We express our condolences to Winstone's family and friends.

Winstone was a leading figure in the Network of Zambian People Living with HIV/AIDS (NZP+) and one of the founders of the Pan African Treatment Access Movement.

We wish to pay tribute to Winstone by recalling his struggle with and against AIDS denialism. Winstone was open about his HIV status from the early 90s. In 1997 he started taking antiretroviral treatment. In 2000, Winstone, influenced by Thabo Mbeki as well as his own desire to not be ill, became an AIDS denialist. He stopped taking his medicines.

He was also invited to join the notorious Mbeki AIDS Advisory panel, which he did. He publicly questioned the link between HIV and AIDS and the use of antiretrovirals. [1] But Winstone became extremely ill --at one point he was confined to a wheelchair-- and realised that AIDS denialism was wrong and dangerous.
In 2002, Winstone attended the TAC/COSATU National HIV/AIDS Congress titled Treat the People. There he delivered a poignant repudiation of AIDS denialism. He explained how he had been encouraged by the views of President Mbeki, one of his heroes, to wish HIV away. He stopped taking his antiretrovirals for two years, during which time his CD4 count dropped from 500 to 36. In February 2002, he was very ill and began taking antiretrovirals again. Winstone gradually recovered and it is probable that ARVs gave him nearly a decade more of life. [2] His speech was widely reported in the media and was a blow to Mbeki's deadly agenda. [3]
Winstone's denouncement of AIDS denialism is best told in his own words:

"I’m a person living with HIV, I’ve been living with HIV for the last 12 years, since 1997 I was on antiretrovirals. Until one of the greatest people that I respect very much, one of my heroes Thabo Mbeki made me start doubting, well he didn’t make me start doubting. I’ve always wanted to be HIV negative and he sort of encouraged me to think in those lines. I decided to drop my drugs in the year 2000 and just wished HIV away. And it was kind of very stupid for someone to do but I think you will understand if you are living with HIV and you really want to live, say up to the age of Madiba and someone comes and say HIV has nothing to do with AIDS. It’s very attractive and I got very attracted and decided to start denying that HIV caused AIDS. And that denial has been very costly to me and I’m very lucky to be alive now at least on a wheelchair because some of the people, I was with in the panel, I’m a member of President Mbeki&rsq uo;s Presidential Panel, some of them are dead now. I think about three people, we were together, are dead. And my CD4 count plummeted from 500 when I stopped taking the medications to 36 in February this year, until I restarted and I’m able to stand now and speak to you." [4]

In an interview with Lynn Altenroxel, he said, ""What I went through was some kind of denial ... It was such a waste of time. The last two years were such a waste of time. I know some of the people I was with, they just died in denial." [3]

He also said, "What mattered to me as person living with HIV was to be told that HIV did not cause AIDS. That was nice. Of course, it was like printing money when the economy is not doing well. Or pissing in your pants when the weather is too cold. Comforting for a while but disastrous in the long run."

Winstone's story exemplifies the internal struggle many of us have to overcome when faced with the diagnosis of having a fatal or potentially fatal illness. The wish to deny it is immensely powerful. Tragically, that wish to deny is preyed upon by vultures selling quack remedies and anti-scientists like Mbeki and Peter Duesberg.Thankfully, Winstone overcame this impulse and repudiated Mbeki.

Winstone had a big role in destroying the edifice of deadly nonsense that Thabo Mbeki stood for. When we look back upon the struggle for treatment in South Africa which culminated in the rollout of ARVs in 2004, Winstone's speech at the TAC/COSATU Congress was a seminal moment.

He survived Mbeki's influence and took a decision to go back onto treatment that would give him, his family, his friends and the world of AIDS and TB a powerful and humane activist for almost another decade.

Hamba Kahle Winstone!

References:

TAG statement on Winstone Zulu.

We need to question the cause of what is called AIDS in Africa.

Wish you were right, says Mbeki AIDS man.

Beat it! 2002 Episode 12.

HIV denialism has taken too many lives - Ken Witwer and Seth Kalichman

Eduard Grebe — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:25:56 +0000

In the wake of HIV-positive boxer Terry Morrison's bid to fight in Quebec, the Montreal Gazette published a highly inaccurate and irresponsible piece by Terry Michael, a well-known AIDS denialist. It is clear that denialists are attempting to exploit Morrison's tragedy for propaganda purposes. While it is usually not a good idea to 'debate' denialists, it was important to counter the misinformation spread in a prominent newspaper. Two articles by scientists set the record straight and warned Gazette readers about the dangers of AIDS denialism:

HIV denial is fatal – Norbert Gilmore (McGill University)
HIV denialism has taken too many lives – Ken Witwer (Johns Hopkins University) and Seth Kalichman (University of Connecticut)

Witwer and Kalichman's piece is embedded below.

HIV denialism has taken too many lives

Beware the medical myth that HIV is harmless or doesn't even exist

BY KEN WITWER AND SETH KALICHMAN, FEBRUARY 11, 2011

"What if most everything you think you know about HIV and AIDS is wrong?" This, according to Terry Michael in his opinion piece "Junk science and AIDS" (Gazette, Feb. 5) is the question that HIV-positive boxer Tommy Morrison is asking Canadian officials in his plea to fight in Quebec on Feb. 25. Morrison has repeatedly tested positive for HIV and refuses to take an HIV test that is mandatory if he is to take part in the fight. The authorities require the test because, fairly or not, they do not want to risk Morrison's infecting his opponent or anyone else who comes into contact with his blood.

Rather than encourage Morrison to take the simple, routine HIV test, ending the speculation about his HIV status and clearing his way into the ring, Michael astonishingly states that HIV tests are not accurate and that HIV, the cause of AIDS, does not even exist.

The science is indisputable. HIV tests are among the most accurate tests for any medical condition. HIV/AIDS has caused tens of millions of deaths: men and women, old and young, gay and straight.

Michael's article raises questions of responsibility and accountability. Is it acceptable when unsound information is printed in the pages of a major newspaper? AIDS denialism -the movement professing that HIV is harmless or nonexistent - has claimed several hundred thousand lives in South Africa alone. Presenting such views as if they were valid alternatives to scientific knowledge has the effect of legitimizing them and ensuring their continued spread.

A poignant illustration of the consequences of AIDS denialism is a woman named Christine Maggiore. Maggiore wrote the book that Michael co-opted in his article: "What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong?" Like Michael, Christine Maggiore was neither a doctor nor a scientist, yet when she discovered that she was HIV-positive, she bet her life on the lie that HIV, if it even exists, is harmless.

Maggiore accepted the unfounded views of fringe biologist Peter Duesberg. She listened to an Internet organization called Rethinking AIDS. As a result, her daughter was infected with HIV and died of AIDS at the age of 3. Unshaken by even this tragedy, Maggiore founded an organization to persuade HIV-positive mothers to do the same things that had led to her own child's death. In 2008, Maggiore herself died of AIDS, but not before ensuring that others would follow.

It is disturbingly ironic that Michael uses the late Maggiore's words in defence of Tommy Morrison. Let us hope that HIV-positive people who have been deceived by AIDS denialism -including Morrison, if he is indeed HIV-positive -will come to their senses and obtain sound medical advice.

We encourage the readers of The Gazette to beware medical myths that masquerade as scientific information.

Ken Witwer researches HIV and related viruses as a fellow at Johns Hopkins University. Seth Kalichman is a professor at the University of Connecticut and author of the book Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy.

What was Anthony Mbewu's role in the collapse of the Global Forum for Health Research?

Eduard Grebe — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 00:01:47 +0000

Beverly Patterson Steams writes on SciDevNet:

Poor countries striving to improve their health systems deserve better than the unexplained implosion of the Global Forum for Health Research, argues Beverly Peterson Stearns.

Barely a year ago nearly 1,000 people from 80 countries gathered enthusiastically at the Palacio de Convenciones in Havana, Cuba, under the banner 'Innovating for the health of all'. More than half came from low- and middle-income countries. They were attending the annual meeting of the non-profit organisation the Global Forum for Health Research (GFHR), eager to hear about inventive and effective ways to conduct research, and urgently seeking to improve health in their countries.

Now, less than a year after taking office, the forum's executive director, Anthony Mbewu, has resigned, and the forum itself is in failing health. The prognosis is poor. Very few remain in its Geneva secretariat. Many employees have quit, been fired, or have retired early.

Read the full article.

WBAI: Do not put Gary Null's dangerous show on the air (Sign on)

Eduard Grebe — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:19:16 +0000

A large number of organisations and individuals have signed this letter to the WBAI management asking them to reverse a decision to restore supplement-entrepreneur Gary Null's show to WBAI radio. You can sign on by emailing StopNull@earthlink.net.

To: Tony Bates, Interim Program Director

Berthold Reimers, Interim General Manager

Mitchel Cohen, Local Station Board Chair

Arlene Englehardt, Pacifica National Board and Executive Director

To whom it concerns:

We are writing as individuals and organizations who are deeply distressed by WBAI's recent restoration of supplement-entrepreneur Gary Null to the airwaves of WBAI Radio five days a week.

We are gravely concerned about this prospect and the consequences for people at risk of and living with HIV. Mr. Null and his frequent radio guests support the notions, among others, that HIV does not play a role in causing AIDS; that the disease is not transmitted sexually or via dirty needles; that HIV tests are meaningless; and that antiretroviral drugs are not only poisonous but can actually cause AIDS. Legitimate concerns and grievances about the pharmaceutical industry are eclipsed and diminished by this life-threatening stance.

The spread of false claims about HIV and AIDS is deadly, and particularly harms the poor communities of color most devastated by HIV/AIDS. Disinformation about HIV has caused the unnecessary suffering and death of an estimated 300,000 men, women and children (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/26/aids-south-africa ).

Both the existence of HIV and its role in the causation of AIDS has been amply demonstrated (see, e.g., www.aidstruth.org). Among the destructive effect of spreading these falsehoods is to reduce condom use, increase infection risk and dissuade people from the use of life-saving antiretroviral therapy (among other modalities).

We respect the station's longstanding free-speech tradition, and support open debate on critical public health issues. We also deeply appreciate the fiscal difficulties facing WBAI and the Pacifica network. However, the notion that WBAI's survival is dependent on relying on Mr. Null while spreading a message of death is antithetical to the mission of the station and of the Pacifica Network to which it belongs.

We call on WBAI management to immediately reverse its decision to add Mr. Null's program to its schedule.

Signed,

[This list will continue to be updated]

Institutions:

ACT UP/East Bay, Berkeley-Oakland, CA

ACT UP/NY

ACT UP/Philadelphia

African Services Committee

AIDS Action Baltimore

AIDS Community Research Initiative of America (ACRIA)

AIDS Treatment Activists Coalition (ATAC)

Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP)

Foundation for Integrative AIDS Research (FIAR), Brooklyn, NY

Global AIDS Alliance

HealthGAP

Housing Works, Inc.

Middle East Childrens Alliance, Berkeley, CA

New York Buyers’ Club (NYBC)

Project Inform

Proyecto SOL Filadelphia

Treatment Action Group (TAG)

Individuals:

Aaron Boyle

Alice Iversen, former Bd Member, Two Harbors, MN Co-op Credit Union and Community Health Center (the first community clinic n MMO in USA-see NY Times, 1947)

Amanda Lugg, African Services Committee

Andrew Velez

Andy Humm, veteran gay activist

Ann Brameier, L. Ac.

Ann Northrop, member, ACT UP/NY

Anna Forbes, MSS

Charles King, President and CEO, Housing Works

Charlotte Winczer

Chloé Forette, member, ACT UP/Paris

Dan Borden

Donald Grove

Elizabeth Harvey Richards

Ellen R. Shaffer, PhD MPH

Eric Sawyer

Eustacia Smith

George A. Bishopric, MD

George M. Carter, Director, FIAR

Grant Gailey

Gregory 'gar' Russell, ACT-UP/East Bay

Gus Cairns, editor, HIV Treatment Update

Hans Kindt

Holly Horne

James Wentzy

Jared Becker

Jeanne Bergman, AIDStruth.org

Jeff Burack, MD, East Bay AIDS Center, Oakland

Jennifer Getty, Atlanta, GA

Joel E. Gallant, MD, MPH, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

John Iversen, enrolled member Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Berkeley Needle Exchange Co-founder

John Riley, member, ACT UP/NY

John Winters, ACT UP/East Bay

Jon Winkleman

Jose de Marco

Julene Weaver

Julie Davids, CHAMP

Ken Bing, member, ACT UP/NY

Kendall Q. Morrison

Laurie Wen, member, ACT UP/NY

Lily Kirsanow

Liz Highleyman

Lynda Dee, AIDS Action Baltimore

Marilyn Ringstaff, CNM, JD, Women of W.O.R.T.H., Inc.

Mark Milano

Matt Sharp

Maudelle Shirek, former Vice Mayor, Berkeley, CA

Michael Mooney

Nanette Kazuoka, member, ACT UP/NY

Nelson Vergel, Director, Program for Wellness Restoration

Nina Reznick, Esq.

Paul Dalton

Paul Davis, HealthGAP (Global Access Project), Kenya

Paul Iversen, Duluth, MN Central Labor Council, enrolled member Minnesota Chippewa Tribe

Paul Volberding, MD, San Francisco

Phyllis Bloom, L. Ac.

Richard Jeffreys

Rob Camp

Robert Carpick., OHD, Piladelphia, ACT UP/East Bay

Shoshana Silberman, NP

Steven Kovacev, marathon runner, author and 25+ year HIV survivor

Steve O'Brien, MD, East Bay AIDS Center, Oakland

Timothy Lunceford, member, ACT UP/NY

Tony Arena, member, ACT UP/NY

Tony Howard

Tym Tschneaux, ACT UP/East Bay

Udo Schuklenk, PhD

AIDS denialist defamatory comments results in donation to TAC

Eduard Grebe — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:56:09 +0000

In October 2009, a politically right-wing British magazine, the Spectator, published a blog entitled "Questioning the AIDS consensus". The blog announced that the Spectator Events Division would be screening the AIDS denialist documentary, House of Numbers, to which the author of the blog appeared to be sympathetic. This was not the first time the Spectator had published or promoted nonsense about AIDS. In the early 2000s they published a piece by Rian Malan, replete with errors and misrepresentations, purporting to debunk AIDS statistics.

In response to the October blog, two well known AIDS denialists (Michael Geiger and Clark Baker, writing under pseudonyms) posted abusive, false and defamatory comments on the Spectator website attacking the integrity of leading HIV scientist, John Moore. This is a common tactic employed by some leading AIDS denialists. Moore asked the Spectator to remove these clearly libelous posts, but the magazine failed to do this fully and in a timely manner. Pressed by lawyers, the Spectator eventually removed the libelous posts, apologised to Moore, paid his legal costs and agreed to make a donation to a charity of Moore's choice as a token of regret. Moore, a long time friend of the TAC and outspoken critic of AIDS denialism, nominated our organisation as the recipient of these funds, which will be used to further help people in South Africa obtain antiretroviral drugs to treat their HIV infections.

AIDS denialists should take note and perhaps be more careful about their defamations in the future.

Treatment Action Campaign on quack television adverts in South Africa

Eduard Grebe — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 07:10:28 +0000

2 August 2010

ETV must stop airing dangerous Christ Embassy commercials

ETV is promoting quackery by airing Christ Embassy’s weekly info commercial at 7:30 on Sunday mornings. During the commercial the pastor who runs the church claims to faith-heal a number of diseases including cancer, heart disease and arthritis. Christ Embassy's website claims that Pastor Chris Oyakhilome, the proprietor of this church, can faith-heal HIV.

‘ETV's 3rd Degree has been outspoken against AIDS quackery and denialism and so it is disappointing that the station runs Christ Embassy adverts, which are quackery and a threat to public health,’ says Nathan Geffen, TAC Treasurer.

Many religious organisations are playing a critical role in the fight against HIV and TB in South Africa, raising awareness, providing spiritual and emotional support to people with these conditions and thereby helping them to adhere to the medications which cure TB and suppress HIV in the blood to restore people's health.

This is not the case with Christ Embassy. By claiming to heal life-threatening conditions, Christ Embassy is leading people to believe that they no longer have to adhere to treatment or seek appropriate medical care.

Dr Graeme Meintjes of the University of Cape Town says that ‘Without treatment HIV and drug-resistant TB are fatal. I have direct experience of this happening: a patient with HIV and drug-resistant TB infection died after stopping medication for both these conditions. She had been doing well on treatment prior to joining Christ Embassy. The drug-resistant TB was transmitted to family members before her death, illustrating that there are also public health consequences.’

Andile Madondile, a TAC treatment literacy trainer in Khayelitsha, warns that: ‘If a person is told they have been cured from HIV they can stop taking their ARVs, develop resistance and get sick. They can also stop protecting their partners by stopping using condoms.’

In light of these urgent public health concerns, TAC lodged a complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASASA) on 22 November 2009. ETV was copied on the advert. Under the advertising code, advertisements cannot make unfounded claims about treating or curing a disease listed in appendix F.

ASASA ruled on 1 June 2010 that the content was, according to ETV, sponsored programming and not an advertisement, and, therefore ASASA does not hold jurisdiction over its content. TAC is appealing the ruling.

On 29 March 2010 TAC sent a request directly to ETV raising our concerns and requesting that ETV cease running the commercial. We have followed up on this request, but ETV has consistently ignored it and is still running the commercial weekly. The first time ETV showed any interest in responding to our request was when an ETV representative contacted us immediately after our press alert last week. He promised to send an official response within 24 hours. Several days later we are still waiting.

South Africa is facing dual HIV/TB epidemics and therefore South African media outlets have a responsibility to promote correct information about prevention, treatment and care. The promotion of quackery by ETV is undermining these efforts. We call on ETV to cease airing the commercials.

***

Note: TAC unequivocally opposes The Protection of Information Bill and the establishment of a statutory Media Appeals Tribunal. Our criticisms of ETV should not be construed as support for efforts to stifle expression and a free media.

Conspiracy theories in science

Eduard Grebe — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:32:44 +0000

We recommend this article, "Conspiracy theories in science" by Ted Goertzel in EMBO reports.

Conspiracy theories that target specific research can have serious consequences for public health and environmental policies

Conspiracy theories are easy to propa gate and difficult to refute. Fortu nately, until a decade or so ago, few serious conspiracy theories haunted the nat ural sciences. More recently, however, con spiracy theories have begun to gain ground and, in some cases, have struck a chord with a public already mistrustful of science and government. conspiracy theorists—some of them scientifically trained—have claimed that the HiV virus is not the cause of aiDS, that global warming is a manipulative hoax and that vaccines and genetically modified foods are unsafe. these claims have already caused serious consequences: misguided public health policies, resistance to energy conservation and alternative energy, and dropping vaccination rates.

Read the rest of the article (PDF).

Berkeley Drops Probe of Duesberg After Finding 'Insufficient Evidence' - ScienceInsider

Eduard Grebe — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:48:55 +0000

ScienceInsider reports:

The paper that cost the editor of Medical Hypotheses his job will have no further consequences for its main author, molecular virologist Peter Duesberg of the University of California (UC), Berkeley. The university has ended its misconduct investigation after concluding that Duesberg was within his rights when he wrote that there is no evidence of a deadly AIDS epidemic in South Africa.

Duesberg's paper, published online on 19 July 2009, triggered a storm of protests from AIDS scientists and activists. Elsevier, the publisher of Medical Hypotheses, has retracted the article and has terminated the contract of the journal's editor, Bruce Charlton of Newcastle University in the United Kingdom, who declined to introduce a peer review system at the 35-year-old journal.

UC Berkeley started its investigation in August after receiving two letters of complaint, one from activist Nathan Geffen of the Treatment Action Coalition in South Africa. (University rules allow people making such allegations to remain anonymous.) The investigation, by UC Berkeley epidemiologist Arthur Reingold, focused on two allegations: That the article was retracted because of false claims in the paper and that Duesberg should have disclosed an alleged financial conflict of interest. One of his co-authors, David Rasnick, formerly worked for Matthias Rath, a vitamin entrepreneur who claims that HIV drugs are dangerous and that his dietary supplements can cure AIDS.

In a letter Duesberg forwarded to ScienceInsider, Berkeley Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Faculty Welfare Sheldon Zedeck writes that there is "insufficient evidence ... to support a recommendation for disciplinary action, pursuant to the Faculty Code of Conduct." (Zedeck's letter is dated 28 May, but Duesberg says he received it only recently.) Zedeck's letter did not explain the basis for the decision. However, the Faculty Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures for the Berkeley Campus does not mention reporting potential conflicts of interest in published papers.

The ruling does not mean Berkeley approves of the paper. "The university's investigation did not undertake to evaluate the merits of your research," Zedeck writes, "but concluded that your right to publish and disseminate your views is protected under the umbrella of academic freedom." A UC Berkeley spokesperson says the university does not comment on personnel issues.

Duesberg says he feels "exonerated" by the university's decision. He made his case to Reingold at a 7 May meeting at which he was accompanied by Berkeley's faculty ombudsperson. His lawyer also wrote Zedeck a letter in his defense.

Geffen disagrees. "This finding does not exonerate Duesberg," he says. "The language of the ruling makes that clear." Geffen, who was notified of the outcome, says he respects the university's decision but believes that "it was worth raising the issue, in any case, and putting it on the record."

Read the article at ScienceInsider.

MMR-scare doctor Andrew Wakefield struck from the register

Eduard Grebe — Mon, 24 May 2010 17:10:18 +0000

Andrew Wakefield

The doctor who sparked the "MMR scare" and a hero of the anti-vaccination movement, Andrew Wakefield, has been struck from the medical register in the United Kingdom by the General Medical Council after being found guilty of serious misconduct. The GMC found that he had "abused his position of trust" and "brought the medical profession into disrepute" through "multiple separate instances of serious professional misconduct". The Guardian reports:

Andrew Wakefield, the doctor at the centre of the MMR scare, has been struck off the medical register after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

He was not at the General Medical Council (GMC) hearing to receive the verdict on his role in a public health debacle which saw vaccination of young children against measles, mumps and rubella plummet.

The GMC said he acted in a way that was dishonest, misleading and irresponsible while carrying out research into a possible link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, bowel disease and autism.

He had "abused his position of trust" and "brought the medical profession into disrepute" in studies he carried out on children.

The GMC said there had been "multiple separate instances of serious professional misconduct".

One of Wakefield's colleagues at the time at the Royal Free hospital in London, John Walker-Smith, 73 and now retired, was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck off. Another, Simon Murch, was found not guilty. Wakefield had already been discredited after a series of research projects failed to find any link between the triple MMR vaccine and autism, although a number of families continue to support him, even claiming to have been victimised for working with him.

He said today in an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme before the verdict that he and colleagues had listened and responded to "concerns of parents about their very sick children" and had acted "appropriately in the children's best interests to determine what the nature of their problem was".

Read the full story.

British Chiropractic Association drops libel action against science writer after losing key issue in Appeals Court

Eduard Grebe — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:39:38 +0000

Simon Singh: Image credit: Gaius Cornelius (CC-A-SA)We reported previously on the libel action the British Chiropractic Association won in a lower court against esteemed British science writer Simon Singh after he called their claims that chiropractic could treat childhood diseases "bogus". The lower court had found that his statements were statements of fact, and that he therefore had to prove that the BCA knew that their claims were false when they made them. They have now abandoned their case against Singh after he won a key argument on appeal, namely that his article constituted comment and not statements of fact. (It should be noted that whether the BCA's claims about chiropractic was true was not at issue, but rather whether they knowingly made false claims.) Nevertheless, concern remains about the abuse of English libel law in matters of science and many scientists fear that several recent cases will have a chilling effect on scientific debate (see Ben Goldacre, The Guardian 15 April 2010).

The Guardian (which published Singh's original article) reports:

The British Chiropractic Association has dropped its libel action against the science writer Simon Singh at the end of a two-year battle that has been a landmark in the libel reform campaign.

The case had become a cause celebre, with scientists, celebrities and freedom of speech campaigners lining up to condemn the British libel laws and argue that Singh had a right to express his opinion in print.

Singh was sued by the BCA for a piece he wrote in the Guardian's comment pages criticising the association for defending chiropractors who use treatments on children with conditions such as colic and asthma, when there is little evidence such treatments work.

The case has cost Singh more than £200,000 that he will never fully recover. "It still staggers me that the British Chiropractic Association and half the chiropractors in the UK were making unsubstantiated claims," he said. "It still baffles me that the BCA then dared to sue me for libel and put me through two years of hell before I was vindicated. And it still makes me angry that our libel laws not only tolerate but also encourage such ludicrous libel suits.

"English libel law is so intimidating, so expensive, so hostile to serious journalists that it has a chilling effect on all areas of debate, silencing scientists, journalists, bloggers, human rights activists and everyone else who dares to tackle serious matters of public interest.

"In the area of medicine alone, fear of libel means that good research is not always published because those with vested interests might sue, and bad research that should be withdrawn is not pulled because the authors might sue the journal, and in both cases it is the public that loses out because the truth is never exposed. My victory does not mean that our libel laws are OK, because I won despite the libel laws. We still have the most notoriously anti-free speech libel laws in the free world."

Read the full article in The Guardian.

Also read Singh's own post on The Guardian newsblog.

Elsevier issues ultimatum to Medical Hypotheses editor

Eduard Grebe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:22:00 +0000

In a stunning indictment of the pseudoscience published in Medical Hypotheses, the journal's publisher has issued an ultimatum to the editor: implement peer review or resign. This comes after the retraction of two AIDS denialist papers that the journal published, which were unanimously rejected by five reviewers in a process managed by The Lancet. The papers, “HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS: A new perspective” by Peter Duesberg and “AIDS denialism at the ministry of health” by Marco Ruggiero, caused great concern in the scientific community and several prominent AIDS researchers wrote to the publisher expressing their concern. The retractions and Elsevier's decision to implement peer review at the journal will no doubt be held up by denialists as evidence of "censorship," but in fact illustrates that "dissident science" does not stand up to the scrutiny of peer review. Medical Hypotheses does not conduct peer review and had under the leadership of its present editor, Bruce Charlton, become a haven for pseudoscience of various kinds, including AIDS denialism.

Below are two reports on the publisher's steps to reform Medical Hypotheses.

Zoë Corbyn writes in Times Higher Education:

The editor of the journal Medical Hypotheses has been given until 15 March either to implement changes to adopt a traditional peer-review system, or to resign.

He has also been told that even if he stays with the journal, his contract will not be renewed at the end of the year.

As Times Higher Education reported in January, publisher Elsevier is attempting to rein in its unorthodox journal, which publishes papers on the basis of how interesting or radical they are rather than using peer review, after it published a paper last July that denied the link between HIV and Aids.

The article prompted an outcry from Aids researchers, leading Elsevier to propose changes to both introduce peer review and exclude papers on certain controversial topics.

But Elsevier’s plans have been vehemently opposed by the journal’s editor, Bruce Charlton, its editorial advisory board and a large number of Medical Hypotheses’ authors, who have mounted a campaign to save the journal, believing it offers an important outlet for radical ideas.

Professor Charlton said: “Elsevier is asking me either to resign immediately, or else immediately to begin implementing changes that it has unilaterally and irrationally demanded. But my conscience will not allow me… I cannot do either of these things.”

The news comes as two controversial papers on the Aids virus that had been retracted from the journal following the outcry are “permanently withdrawn” after they failed to pass the test of peer review.

The papers in question are “HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS: A new perspective” by Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and a paper published the same month, “AIDS denialism at the ministry of health” by Marco Ruggiero, professor of molecular biology at the University of Florence.

Both papers are being permanently withdrawn from the scientific record, even though the Ruggiero paper does not deny the link between HIV and Aids, but argues that the Italian Ministry of Health seemed not to believe that HIV is the “sole cause” of the Aids virus.

The papers were both rejected unanimously by five anonymous reviewers in a process managed by The Lancet, another Elsevier journal.

But Professor Charlton said he rejected both the process and outcome of this assessment, and accused Elsevier of running a “show trial” and making a “gross mistake”.

Read the full article.

ScienceInsider reports:

The editor of the journal Medical Hypotheses—an oddity in the world of scientific publishing because it does not practice peer review—is about to lose his job over the publication last summer of a paper that says HIV does not cause AIDS. Publishing powerhouse Elsevier today told editor Bruce Charlton that it won't renew his contract, which expires at the end of 2010, and it asked that Charlton resign immediately or implement a series of changes in his editorial policy, including putting a system of peer review in place. Charlton, who teaches evolutionary psychology at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in the United Kingdom, says he will do neither, and some on the editorial advisory board say they may resign in protest if he is fired.

Elsevier's move is the latest in an 8-month battle over the journal; it comes after an anonymous panel convened by Elsevier recommended drastic changes to the journal's course, and five scientists reviewed the controversial paper and unanimously panned it.

Medical Hypotheses, which says it "will consider radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas provided they are coherently expressed," is the only Elsevier journal not to practice peer review. Scientist, entrepreneur, and author David Horrobin, who founded the journal in 1975, believed reviewers tend to dislike what lies outside the scientific mainstream and thus are reluctant to embrace new ideas, however promising. Charlton, who succeeded Horrobin in 2003, takes the same view: He decides what gets published himself—although he occasionally will consult another scientist—and manuscripts are edited only very lightly. As thejournal's Web site explains, "the editor sees his role as a 'chooser', not a 'changer.' "

It's a policy that leads to the occasional wild and wacky paper—a 2009 article for which the author studied his own navel lint became an instant classic—but the journal is also a "unique and excellent" venue for airing new and valuable ideas, says neuroscientist Vilayanur Ramachandran of the University of California (UC), San Diego, who published in the journal 15 times himself and sits on its editorial advisory board. "There are ideas that may seem implausible but which are very important if true," Ramachandran says. "This is the only place you can get them published."

...

Duesberg—who has not published anything on HIV the past decade except for one paper in a journal published by the Indian Academy of Sciences—says Elsevier's measures are the latest example of "censorship" imposed by the "AIDS establishment." But Medical Hypotheses' critics applaud the publisher’s latest step. "It seems clear that Elsevier has come to realize that there is a problem with Medical Hypotheses and that they are doing what they can to rectify it," says Moore.

Read the full article.

Debunking Delusions - New book by Nathan Geffen

Eduard Grebe — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:27:38 +0000

AidsTruth contributor and a leader of the Treatment Action Campaign, Nathan Geffen, has published a new book documenting AIDS denialism and the related quackery in South Africa titled Debunking Delusions: The Inside Story of the Treatment Action Campaign. We will publish a full review soon. More information can be found at the book's website. Below is the publisher's summary of the book.

Summary

One of the great, iconic struggles for social justice in the 21st century has been the campaign of the TAC against state-supported Aids denialism in South Africa. This struggle between activists, scientists and health workers, on the one hand, and a strange alliance of dissidents, quacks and political leaders, on the other, is here recounted in absorbing and dramatic detail for the first time by an insider. In his book Nathan Geffen, one of the TAC leaders, describes how early on in its life the organisation discovered that the greatest obstacle to AIDS treatment was in fact the South African government’s denialism. Not only did this extend to a reluctance to provide antiretroviral treatment to AIDS patients but also to support of a host of quacks and denialists who operated freely in the country to sow suspicion and confusion about the efficacy of standard medical treatment of AIDS. The most notorious of these were the German vitamin seller, Dr Matthias Rath, who along the way sued The Guardian of London and lost his case, and the Dutch nurse Tine van der Maas. It was the TAC that, as a result of a court case it brought against Rath, managed to stop his operations in South Africa; and it was the TAC, once again through legal means, that put pressure on the South African government to roll out an antiretroviral programme throughout the country. Geffen describes not only the TAC’s response to the puzzling intransigence of government and the spellbinding nonsense of dissidents, but the thought, strategy and discussion that lay behind the organisation’s major decisions. The story of the TAC’s campaign is one of the great triumphs of citizen activism for social justice and human rights.

About the Author

Nathan Geffen has been one of the leaders of TAC since 2000. His work has involved confronting the AIDS denialist policies of Thabo Mbeki and Manto Tshabalala-Msimang. He was also the editor of TAC’s magazine Equal Treatment. He has written extensively on AIDS and human rights. He previously co-authored two chapters in Edwin Cameron’s book Witness to Aids, winner of the Sunday Times Alan Paton Award. This is Geffen’s first full book.

“Between these covers you will find all the passion and intelligence Nathan Geffen devoted to the fight against quackery in South Africa. The Mbeki government’s march of folly is fully exposed here. One hopes that this book will serve, not only as a record, but as a lesson.” – Jonny Steinberg

“An intellectually incisive, engagingly written history of a policy calamity – and the courageous activism it unleashed – that has important implications for our country's understanding of its past, as well as its future course.” – Edwin Cameron

Junk Science Kills

Eduard Grebe — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:45:03 +0000

Elizabeth M. Whelan writes in the New York Post:

The media gave big headlines to this week's stories on a prestigious British medical publication's retraction of an article that had claimed to show a causal link between standard childhood vaccinations (measles, mumps and rubella) and autism.

Yet the coverage of the Lancet affair didn't truly convey the outrageousness of the original publication or the gravity of its consequences -- consequences long festering, since the paper was published not last week but 12 years ago.

Many of us in the scientific community recognized the "study" as junk when it appeared in 1998. Even before we learned of then-unknown ethical failings by its lead author, we knew the study was based on a tiny population of only 12 children. More, it relied on a novel methodology that assumed some bizarre, previously unheard of, association between children's autism and their manifestation of intestinal problems.

Nonetheless, the media back then seized on this story from a prestigious medical source -- and the scare picked up steam when TV appearances by actress Jenny McCarthy and a Rolling Stone article by Robert Kennedy Jr. blared word of the putative dangers of vaccines.

When criticism of the paper intensified in the days after publication, Lancet editor-in-chief Dr. Richard Horton defended his decision to publish what he acknowledged as an inferior study by claiming it would generate debate on the autism/vaccine issue. Even when 10 of the original 13 authors withdrew their names from the article, Horton still refused to withdraw the study.

Read the full piece in the New York Post.

Salon.com: The autism-vaccine lie that won't die

Eduard Grebe — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:42:12 +0000

Rahul K. Parikh, M.D. writes on Salon.com:

The media trumpeted an irresponsible study, ensuring that its nasty legacy thrives

Feb. 05, 2010

This week, Dr. Andrew Wakefield's now infamous study linking the MMR vaccine to autism was finally retracted by the prestigious Lancet medical journal. The move came days after medical officials in the United Kingdom found the doctor guilty of multiple ethics violations. For doctors, this is a victory -- but a bittersweet one.

As a pediatrician, I grapple daily with what Wakefield wrought: parents who are twisted in knots -- to the point of tears -- about whether to immunize their child. In the 12 years since the publication of Wakefield's study, 10 of his fellow co-authors have denounced him, and an unremitting series of revelations have exposed just how corrupt his motives and methods were. Most important, multiple studies verified there is no link between the MMR (or any other) vaccine and autism. Meanwhile, infectious diseases once confined to medical history have broken out in our communities. To say the retraction is criminally overdue is an understatement.

Further, even as Wakefield's research is expunged from the scientific record, what he spawned -- a well-funded, vocal, even rabid movement -- will remain. Without him, poster girl Jenny McCarthy would have been abandoned in the MTV archives instead of smugly crowing to Time magazine, "I do believe sadly it's going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it's their f___ing fault that the diseases are coming back. They're making a product that's s___ ." And anti-vaccine darling David Kirby would split his time between running a P.R. firm and writing pithy articles about art and aircraft instead of turning speculation and rumor into a Kennedy-esque vaccine-autism conspiracy theory. Finally, Wakefield himself stands to be completely unaffected by both the U.K. medical community (which could revoke his license to practice there) and the Lancet's decision. He long ago settled here in the U.S. and successfully peddles his views through his Thoughtful House autism center in Texas.

Still, while the media busily finger-wagged, blogged and tweeted about the damnation of Andrew Wakefield, I wondered whether it considered its own complicity in the whole sordid affair.

The anti-vaccine hysteria, after all, began like so many other big stories: with a press conference. That's where Andrew Wakefield first staked his claim that the MMR vaccine caused autism, according to Paul Offit's book, "Autism's False Prophets." Wakefield wasn't flanked by doctors or hospital officials but by P.R. folks he had hired himself. "One case of [autism] is too many," he said. "It's a moral issue for me, and I can't support the continued use of [the MMR vaccine] until this issue has been resolved."

The problem, of course, is that a news conference loads a gun that the media usually pulls the trigger on: Headlines like "Ban Three-in-One Jab, Doctors Urge" started rolling off the presses. While measles made a tragic resurgence, few reporters attempted to scrutinize Wakefield or his audacious claim. (Even Salon has its own history of bad reporting on the topic, in a controversial and inaccurate 2005 piece by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.)

Read the full article on Salon.com.

Wakefield, who linked MMR vaccine to autism, found to have shown "callous disregard" for children

Eduard Grebe — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:56:30 +0000

The anti-vaccine movement, which shares characteristics with AIDS denialism (both like to blame pharmaceutical conspiracies) and which was originally based on claims by British surgeon Andrew Wakefield, has been dealt a decisive blow by a finding against Wakefield by the General Medical Council. Caims that the MMR vaccine was linked to autism have since been shown to be baseless, but are still promoted by some, including by groups linked to AIDS denialism. The Guardian reports:

Dr Andrew Wakefield, the expert at the centre of the MMR controversy, "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant" and showed a "callous disregard" for the suffering of children involved in his research, the General Medical Council (GMC) has ruled.

Wakefield also acted dishonestly and was misleading and irresponsible in the way he described research that was later published in the Lancet medical journal, the GMC said. He had gone against the interests of children in his care, and his conduct brought the medical profession "into disrepute" after he took blood samples from youngsters at his son's birthday party in return for payments of £5.

The doctor, who was absent from today's GMC hearing, faces being struck off the medical register. The panel decided the allegations against him could amount to serious professional misconduct, an issue to be decided at a later date.

Continue reading at The Guardian.

Also see "From the Lancet to the GMC: how Dr Andrew Wakefield fell from grace".

The Lancet: a new South Africa takes responsibility

Eduard Grebe — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:56:40 +0000

The Lancet has hailed the new approach evident in South Africa in which the government has decisively turned away from the AIDS denialism associated with former President Thabo Mbeki.

The Lancet, Volume 374, Issue 9705, Page 1867, 5 December 2009

HIV/AIDS: a new South Africa takes responsibility

On Dec 1 the usual activities surrounding World AIDS Day will take on a special significance for South Africans. In a high-profile event in Pretoria, the South African National AIDS Council (SANAC) is bringing together people who work in HIV/AIDS, those who have been affected by HIV, and government officials, including President Jacob Zuma, Deputy President and SANAC Chair Kgalema Motlanthe, and the Minister of Health Aaron Motsoaledi. Zuma will give a televised address on HIV/AIDS to the nation. Under the motto “I am responsible, we are responsible, South Africa is taking responsibility”, a new era in the country's response to HIV/AIDS is being publicly heralded. In a key-messages booklet, SANAC calls on everyone to know their HIV status by frequent testing; on communities to stop stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV; and on itself to ensure that the government is taking responsibility for people to receive counselling, provide condoms, and give access to treatment for tuberculosis and HIV.

Already on Oct 29, in what has been widely praised as a landmark speech, Zuma left no doubt about the decisive departure from the previous government's stance of denialism and indifference: “South Africa must work harder to implement the national strategy to tackle HIV/AIDS…all South Africans need to know their HIV status and be informed of the treatment options available to them…there should be no shame, no discriminations, and no recriminations”. The non-governmental organisation Treatment Action Campaign called Zuma's speech, which came almost 10 years after Thabo Mbeki made his HIV/AIDS denial clear before the same National Council of Provinces, as “one of the most important speeches in the history of AIDS in South Africa”.

This extremely welcome and long-awaited change in attitude, and its appropriate urgency, is accompanied by a burst of behind-the-scene activities at the Department of Health and SANAC. In a press conference last month, Motsoaledi explained that there are moves ahead to integrate health facilities for tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, that antiretroviral treatment (ART) guidelines are being revised to initiate treatment for those with a CD4-cell count below 350 cells per μL, and that there are plans for comprehensive integrated antenatal care, which include prevention of mother-to-child transmission—all actions that were called for in The Lancet's recent South Africa Series. The revised ART treatment discussions even came ahead of new WHO recommendations, published on Nov 30. South Africa's National Strategic Plan for HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases aims to reduce the rate of infections by 50% and cover 80% of the people who need ART by 2011. In October, Cabinet committed to accelerate the response to meet these targets by 2011.

Additionally, Motsoaledi and others in his department are busy identifying and rectifying managerial and attitudinal deficiencies in district-level health-care facilities and have created an expert group to advance the National Health Insurance agenda.

This integrated multilevel approach to tackle the long-neglected burden of HIV/AIDS—based on, and emboldened by, scientific assessment—is a refreshing and brave shake up by a politician. It raises hope and excitement, especially among scientists, academics, and clinicians, who have been ignored and alienated for far too long. However, the task is enormous. South Africa remains the country with the largest HIV-positive population, 5·7 million, according to 2008 UNAIDS figures. Average antenatal prevalence is 29·3% but four districts record a prevalence above 40%, and 79% of maternal deaths tested for HIV were HIV-positive. What is needed to make these ambitious plans a reality is adequate resources, both financial and human, and buy-in by all involved. The South African World AIDS Day motto rightly asks for everyone to take responsibility and play his or her part.

When we asked for serious discussions and decisive actions in a Comment accompanying the launch of The Lancet Series, we could not have hoped for a swifter indication of serious engagement. And although the ultimate test will be in the actual delivery of preventive efforts and treatment for all, and evidence of an effect on new infections and mortality, a first very important and encouraging step towards these goals has been made. South Africa has shown how science and policy working together make the best advocates for change—change for a healthier future.

Article reproduced by permission of Elsevier.

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)62065-1

Killer syndrome: The Aids denialists

Eduard Grebe — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:48:40 +0000

Rob Sharp reports in The Independent on the presistence of AIDS denialism

A middle-aged man walks into an East London café and apologises for being late. With his clipped hair and bus-driver's uniform of thick overcoat, shirt, and branded tie, he looks like any other public service employee. But soon he delivers a speech of startling ferocity against the medical establishment.

Mike explains that he runs a London-based health website on which he posts articles and links to information that questions whether HIV causes Aids, disputes the existence of HIV, and denies the fact that unprotected sex helps to spread it. He offers support for those who, he says, are "negotiating with medical authorities over taking a different approach to dealing with their circumstances." He claims to get thousands of hits on his site and has helped advise several people who have been diagnosed with HIV and are launching legal action against their local health authorities, in the belief that they have been unfairly treated by the doctors who are trying to help them.

Mike is an Aids denialist. He shares the view of a global network of academics and campaigners that follow the proclamations of Peter Duesberg, a cell biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who believes HIV does not cause Aids. And, alarmingly, 2009 has been a good year for the denialist community.

In the first week of November, a record number of Aids denialists from 28 countries, including Britain, attended the Rethinking Aids conference in Oakland, California. One of the main draws of the conference was a screening of a controversial new documentary by Canadian-born director Brent Leung, House of Numbers, which gives a platform to denialist theories.

Over the last two months it has been screened at the Cambridge and Raindance Film Festivals - decisions that provoked a storm of criticism online. The Spectator was forced to cancel a debate and screening of the film on 28 October after some of the participating speakers pulled out. And yet despite widespread outrage, the film has undoubtedly encouraged those who espouse denialist theories in the UK.

So who are the Aids deniers and what do they believe? According to Seth Kalichman, a psychologist at the University of Connecticut, whose exposé of the movement, Denying Aids, was published in March, denialists anywhere in the world generally share several common beliefs. They say that the "myth" that HIV causes Aids is the product of conspiracies between governments and the pharmaceutical industry; that antiretroviral medication is toxic; and that one day the orthodox medical theories on HIV will crumble.

So far, so typically crackpot. But the movement has gained some damaging traction - and the propagation of denialist theories can have deadly repercussions. Aids charities warn that reading material which argues that HIV does not cause Aids can dissuade potential sufferers from getting tested for HIV, and even lead HIV-infected people to ignore HIV-positive results and cause them to reject antiretroviral therapies.

"Denying the link between HIV and Aids is scientific illiteracy," says Yusef Azad, director of policy and campaigns at the National Aids Trust, Britain's leading HIV/Aids charity. "But worse than that, it is profoundly dangerous and has caused countless unnecessary deaths. Just because something is on the internet does not mean it is even remotely true. More than two decades of peer-reviewed scientific research demonstrates in some detail how HIV attacks the immune system and causes Aids if left untreated."

Read the full article on The Independent's website.

McGill Daily on the dangers of denialism

Eduard Grebe — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:14:33 +0000

Stephanie Law writes in the McGill Daily:

Christina Maggiore died of an AIDS-related illness on December 27, 2008. She was a successful businesswoman who started a multimillion-dollar import/export clothing company, and a freelance consultant for U.S. government export programs. Maggiore is most notorious for her role as an HIV-positive activist who promoted the idea that HIV is not the real cause of AIDS. She was an HIV-denialist.

Maggiore was diagnosed with HIV in 1992. In 1994, she met Peter Duesberg, a molecular biology professor at the University of California at Berkley. Duesberg convinced Maggiore that HIV does not lead to AIDS. A year later, Maggiore started one of the largest networks of HIV-denialists and skeptics, called Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives.

Maggiore refused antiretroviral treatment for HIV because she did not think HIV would lead to AIDS and AIDS-related illnesses. She did not take the recommended treatment for pregnant HIV-positive women to prevent mother-to-child transmission. Her child died at the age of three from Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. The Los Angeles County coroner and various other independent pathology experts concluded that the death was a direct result of her untreated HIV that had progressed into AIDS.

W hen asked about Maggiore, Mark Wainberg, director of the McGill University AIDS Centre, becomes enraged: “Christina Maggiore and her daughter died because they didn’t get treated…. Their story is tragic, but the reality is, Christina Maggiore was so misguided in believing this concoction of bullshit, that it cost not only her life, which is her business, but also the life of her three-year-old kid, and that is everybody’s business.”

Maggiore and her daughter’s deaths are only two of many that result from denying the causal link between HIV and AIDS.

Read the full article.

The Lancet reviews AIDS denialist film "House of Numbers"

Eduard Grebe — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:32:10 +0000

Talha Burki writes in The Lancet Infectious Diseases:

Strange, perhaps, for The Lancet Infectious Diseases to review House of Numbers. It is a threadbare documentary that claims there is no connection between HIV and AIDS. It arrives at this conclusion through a toxic combination of misrepresentation and sophistry. At best, it is a misguided and misbegotten film; at worst, it is downright malevolent.

All of which makes a fine case for ignoring it. HIV/AIDS denialism is an ideology in disgrace; the ravings of what Stephen Lewis—former UN Special Envoy for AIDS in Africa—describes as a “lunatic fringe”. To debate House of Numbers is to attend the film with an honesty and dignity that is entirely alien to its nature. Far better to leave it mouldering in the clutches of cranks and conspiracy theorists.

Only, denialism kills. A study published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes found that South Africa's former reluctance to roll-out antiretroviral-drug programmes—a consequence of former President Thabo Mbeki falling under the sway of the denialist movement—cost more than 330 000 lives. Today, South African policy is very different; “the era of denialism in South Africa is completely over”, stated Barbara Hogan upon her appointment as Health Minister after Mbeki's removal. But it is not inconceivable that the denialist movement might gain ground elsewhere, with similarly catastrophic results.

House of Numbers purports to be an investigative piece by Brent Leung, a filmmaker with “unanswered questions” about the AIDS pandemic. But the disreputable credo of denialism is easy to recognise. The belief system can be summarised as follows: AIDS is not caused by HIV. It is instead a disease related to poverty, malnutrition, and homosexual lifestyles. Antiretroviral drugs are poisonous—“AIDS by prescription” claims Peter Duesberg, spearhead of the denialist movement, and a prominent figure in this film—the pharmaceutical industry is in on the conspiracy, as are the major health organisations. “Could it be that the real epidemic is extreme poverty not HIV?”, Leung disingenuously asks.

If you have a subscription to The Lancet, read the full article here.

The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Volume 9, Issue 12, Page 735, December 2009

doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70316-0

HIV/AIDS is leading cause of death of women of reproductive age: UN report

Eduard Grebe — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:48:14 +0000

The World Health Organization's report Women and health: today's evidence, tomorrow's agenda identifies HIV/AIDS as the leading cause of death among women of reproductive age: "Globally, the leading cause of death among women of reproductive age is HIV/ AIDS. Girls and women are particularly vulnerable to HIV infection due to a combination of biological factors and gender-based inequalities, particularly in cultures that limit women’s knowledge about HIV and their ability to protect themselves and negotiate safer sex."

Here is an extract from the report:

This section is copied without footnotes or graphs. To download the full report, see below.

Women and HIV/AIDS

Globally, HIV is the leading cause of death and disease in women of reproductive age. Of the 30.8 million adults living with HIV in 2007,a 15.5 million were women. The prevalence of HIV infection in women has increased since the early 1990s and is most marked in sub-Saharan Africa.

Total number of people living with HIV/AIDS in 2007 was 33 million, including two million children younger than 15 years.

Southern Africa is most affected; in 2005–2006, median HIV prevalence among pregnant women attending antenatal care was above 15% in eight Southern African countries. Infection was acquired primarily through heterosexual transmission.

In all regions, HIV disproportionately affects female sex workers and injecting drug users, as well as the female partners of infected males.

Women’s particular vulnerability to HIV infection stems from a combination of biological factors and gender inequality. Some studies show that women are more likely than men to acquire HIV from an infected partner during unprotected heterosexual intercourse. The risk posed by this biological difference is compounded in cultures that limit women’s knowledge about HIV and their ability to negotiate safer sex. Stigma, violence by intimate partners, and sexual violence further increase women’s vulnerability. Fewer young women than young men know that condoms can protect against HIV. Furthermore, while women generally report increased condom use during high-risk sex, they are generally less likely to protect themselves than men are.

The youngest women are the most vulnerable. They not only face barriers to information about HIV – and in particular how they can protect themselves from infection – but in many settings they often engage in sexual activity with older men who are more sexually experienced and more likely to be infected.

Female drug users and sex workers are particularly vulnerable; stigma, discrimination and punitive policies only increase their vulnerability. The rate of HIV infection among female sex workers is high in many parts of the world, and a large proportion of women who use drugs also engage in sex work. In prisons, the proportion of drug users among females is higher than among males. The use of contaminated injection equipment is particularly prevalent among women, resulting in higher rates of HIV infection.

Economic vulnerability is another key factor driving HIV infection among women. Economic vulnerability is sometimes associated with migration, which increases high-risk behaviours among women who may be driven into sex work by economic necessity. On a more positive note, in recent years women have benefited from increased access to HIV prevention, treatment and care. Data from 90 low- and middle-income countries suggest that, overall, women are slightly advantaged in terms of access to antiretroviral therapy: at the end of 2008, 45% of women in need and only 37% of men in need received antiretroviral therapy. In 2008, 45% of pregnant women living with HIV received antiretrovirals to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, up from 10% in 2004. Nonetheless, challenges remain: only 21% of pregnant women received HIV testing and counselling, and only one third of those identified as HIV-positive during antenatal care were subsequently assessed for their eligibility to receive antiretroviral therapy for their own health.

To download the full report or executive summary, visit this page: http://www.who.int/gender/documents/9789241563857/en/index.html

South African health minister reveals "shocking" AIDS figures; blames Mbeki denialism for worsening the crisis

Eduard Grebe — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:58:05 +0000

South Africa's Mail & Guardian newspaper reports:

"In 11 years -- from 1997 to 2008 -- the rate of death has doubled in South Africa. That is obviously something that cannot but worry a person," Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi told reporters at Parliament in Cape Town.

He said that in 1997 the total number of deaths stood about 300 000. Last year the figure was 756 000.

Motsoaledi said the figures called for a "massive change in behaviour and attitude" toward Aids among South Africans.

"On the figures, it's shocking. As to whether it has been affected by what we did in the past 10 years, to me that's obvious," he said, according to the South African Press Association.

Read the full article.

Landmark speech by South African President Jacob Zuma

Eduard Grebe — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:09:20 +0000

The Treatment Action Campaign's statement on the South African president's unequivocal repudiation of AIDS denialism in a speech to the upper house of the country's parliament:

Yesterday, President Jacob Zuma made one of the most important speeches in the history of AIDS in South Africa. In front of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), he unequivocally acknowledged the devastation of AIDS on our country. With this speech state-supported AIDS denialism has been banished. The Treatment Action Campaign welcomes the ushering in of this new era, almost exactly ten years since former President Mbeki made a speech that began the era of state-supported denial in front of the NCOP.

President Zuma acknowledged that government’s efforts so far have been insufficient to curb the devastation of the epidemic. The reality of this has been declining health outcomes and increasing mortality. We have a crippled health system and a ballooning epidemic from the years of AIDS denialism and inaction by former President Thabo Mbeki and former Health Minister Manto Tshablala-Msimang. However, today’s speech puts that behind us and provides hope that President Zuma will urgently tackle the epidemic with renewed commitment to meet the treatment and prevention targets of the HIV & AIDS and STIs National Strategic Plan 2007-2011 (NSP).

In his speech, President Zuma acknowledged that the fear and shame that have surrounded the epidemic must be overcome. The spread of the epidemic is intimately connected to government’s ability to safeguard our human rights. All South Africans must feel secure to know their status and access and adhere to treatment without fear of discrimination.

President Zuma emphasized the need for behaviour change to reduce new infections by 50% from 2007 to 2011, the NSP prevention target. Changing behaviour must be facilitated by increased access to prevention services and by reducing the vulnerabilities to HIV infection in our society. Converting knowledge to behaviour change will be directly linked to these interventions.

A theme of the speech was that to turn the tide of the epidemic political will is needed not only by government but also by the citizens of South Africa. TAC and other civil societies have developed an active cadre of HIV activists in South Africa but this commitment to tackling the epidemic needs to be adopted throughout our society. As South African citizens we must actively engage with our own health and the health of each other. As active citizens we can overcome the stigma and discrimination that have driven the epidemic.

Key challenges remain to meeting the ambitious targets of the National Strategic Plan (2007 - 2011) for the treatment and prevention of HIV. But with the renewed political will demonstrated by President Zuma demonstrated by President Zuma and the leadership of Minister of Health, Aaron Motsoaledi, we believe these targets are achievable.

Joseph Sonnabend: House of Numbers is an AIDS denialist film

Eduard Grebe — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:52:58 +0000

Joe Sonnabend writes in his POZ blog:

House of Numbers is the title of a documentary film which according to its promotional material will "rock the foundations on which all conventional wisdom on HIV/AIDS is based"

I have seen the film. It is completely unable to achieve this grandiose objective. It is in fact an AIDS denialist film, despite the contention to the contrary by Brent Leung who made it.

The denialists are a disparate group who remarkably continue to believe that HIV cannot be the causative agent of AIDS either because it is harmless or because it does not exist. There are even those who believe that AIDS itself does not exist as a distinct disease entity. Of course there is no shortage of people with strange views that fly in the face of solid evidence. We can mostly just ignore them. But sometimes these views can be dangerous, and then we really do have to confront and challenge fallacious assertions that can lead to harm.

The Spectator is a weekly UK publication that had arranged a showing of the House of Numbers to be followed by a panel discussion of the film with audience participation. I had agreed to be one of the four panel members together with the filmmaker. Several people asked me not to participate in this event, probably with the thought that it was wrong to associate in any capacity with individuals who hold such outrageous views. There was also much activity on UK blogs, generally denouncing the Spectator event. It seems that a lot of people just did not want it to happen.

Two of the panel members withdrew so the event has now been cancelled. This is a pity. The film is as I said, dangerous. It is dangerous specifically because it presents antiviral treatments as only toxic with no mention of their benefits. Therefore it is justified to be very concerned that some people who need treatment may be dissuaded from receiving it after seeing the film.

I do accept that it is right to not prohibit individuals from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful. But when these views carry danger it is particularly important that they be challenged with valid information. It is absolutely wrong to ignore the film and allow it a free hand in spreading misinformation. As I have experienced when I was a member of President Mbeki's panel in S. Africa, it is impossible to argue with those who hold such denialist views. They are impervious to reason. It is therefore pointless to engage them in discussion. However, when their position is presented to the public, then it is right to try to expose the fallacy of their views to those who might be influenced by them and thus may come to harm as noted above regarding HIV infected people in need of treatment.

I should explain why this is definitely a denialist film despite the protestations of its director that it is not.

In providing a more or less equal, uncritical and essentially neutral platform to those holding denialist views together with those who do not, the filmmaker, presenting himself as an unbiased observer merely asking questions, puts forward the impression that the issue of HIV's role in causation remains unsettled. Although the film does not explicitly reject HIV as playing a causative role in AIDS, it most certainly leaves one with the impression that this, and even the existence of the virus, is merely conjecture. This is a misleading presentation of the well established causative link between HIV and AIDS as something that is just a theory, on a par with the theories of Dr Duesberg or of those who claim that HIV does not exist.

This is absurd and as I explained, also dangerous.

Read the full post.

Death by denial: Symposium explores HIV denial, conspiracy theories

Eduard Grebe — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:08:19 +0000

AIDSTruth contributor Nicoli Nattrass and Seth Kalichmann, author of Denying AIDS were among the scientists and activists who participated in Harvard University's symposium on AIDS Denial. The Harvard Gazette reports:

People who deny that the HIV virus causes AIDS continue to persist in their beliefs despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, nurtured by the broad reach of the Internet and cherry-picked scientific claims, AIDS authorities said Monday (Oct. 19).

Researchers from Harvard, elsewhere in the United States, and South Africa convened at the Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts to decry HIV “denialism,” saying that the continued questioning of HIV’s role in AIDS harms those infected with the virus by discouraging both testing and treatment.

According to the speakers, denialism takes two major forms. Some skeptics deny that HIV plays a role in AIDS, or that it even exists, while others believe in AIDS conspiracies, acknowledging that HIV causes AIDS but questioning HIV’s origins, saying it results from a government conspiracy, is intended as a genocide campaign against blacks, that it was created in CIA labs, or is of other sinister origin or purpose.

The event, sponsored by the Harvard University Center for AIDS Research, was presented in conjunction with the Carpenter Center’s exhibit “ACT UP New York: Activism, Art, and the AIDS Crisis, 1987-1993.” The exhibit contains posters, T-shirts, fliers, and pamphlets from ACT UP’s AIDS activism campaigns which, through sometimes graphic and jarring messages, pushed government action against AIDS. The campaign argued that the government dragged its feet because of homophobia and racism aimed at two groups prone to the ailment: gay men and intravenous drug users, who are often minorities.

Read the full article.

The Spectator dabbles in denialism

Eduard Grebe — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:53:00 +0000

The Spectator's editor, who has in the past questioned climate change, has now started "Questioning the AIDS consensus", inspired by the denialist film House of Numbers.

Update: Now Neville Hodgkinson writes in The Spectator "on a new film that challenges the tenets of the Aids religion and exposes the dangerous confusion at the heart of the industry".

New Statesman's Mehdi Hassan writes:

I have blogged before on the new Spectator editor Fraser Nelson's crude denialism of climate change and his failure to engage with the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I see he has now turned his attention to questioning the link between HIV and Aids, in his Coffee House blog post "Questioning the Aids consensus". Here is how he puts it:

Is it legitimate to discuss the strength of the link between HIV and Aids? It's one of these hugely emotive subjects, with a fairly strong and vociferous lobby saying that any open discussion is deplorable and tantamount to Aids denialism. Whenever any debate hits this level, I get deeply suspicious.

Which is why the below clip -- from a documentary which the Spectator Events division is screening next week, called House of Numbers -- aroused my interest. The film picked up awards at various American film festivals, but has since been denounced as backing Aids denialism. Yet the footage shows Luc Montagnier -- who won a Nobel prize last year for his work on Aids -- saying that many HIV infections can be shrugged off by a healthy immune system.

If Nelson had done his research, he would know that 18 angry doctors and scientists interviewed in the film have since issued a public statement claiming that the film-maker Brent Leung "acted deceitfully and unethically" when recruiting them and that House of Numbers "perpetuates pseudoscience and myths".

Read Mehdi's full post.

HIV and Aids: debate or denial?

Eduard Grebe — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:26:11 +0000

Ben Goldacre writes in The Guardian:

A lot of strange stuff can fly in under the claim that you are "simply starting a debate". You may remember the Aids denialist documentary House of Numbers from three weeks ago. Since then, it has received many glowing outings. The London Raindance film festival explained that they were proud to show it, and a senior programmer appeared on YouTube saying they had gone through the film at 15-second intervals, finding no inaccuracies at all.

This is pretty good for a film which suggests that HIV doesn't cause Aids, but antiretroviral drugs, or poverty, or drug use do, or HIV probably doesn't exist, diagnostic tools don't work, and Aids is simply a spurious basket diagnosis invented to sell antiretroviral medication for a wide range of unrelated problems, and the treatments don't work either.

But now the film has received an even more prominent platform. Here is Fraser Nelson, political editor of the Spectator, promoting the Spectator event next Wednesday at which they will be screening this film: "Is it legitimate to discuss the strength of the link between HIV and Aids? It's one of these hugely emotive subjects, with a fairly strong and vociferous lobby saying that any open discussion is deplorable and tantamount to Aids denialism. Whenever any debate hits this level, I get deeply suspicious."

Of course people will have some concerns. Despite international outcry, from 2000 to 2005 South Africa implemented policies based on the belief that HIV does not cause Aids, and declined to roll out adequate antiretroviral therapy. It has been estimated in two separate studies that around 350,000 people died unnecessarily in South African during this period.

Read the full article.

Swine Flu Shots Revive a Debate About Vaccines

Eduard Grebe — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:04:58 +0000

Jennifer Steinhauer writes in the New York Times:

People who do not believe in vaccinating children have never had much sway over Leslie Wygant Arndt. She has studied the vaccine debate, she said, and came out in favor of having her 10-month-old daughter inoculated against childhood diseases. But there is something different about the vaccine for the H1N1 flu, she said.

“I have looked at the people who are against it, and I find myself taking their side,” said Ms. Wygant Arndt, who lives in Portland, Ore. “But then again I go back and forth on this every day. It’s an emotional topic.”

Anti-vaccinators, as they are often referred to by scientists and doctors, have toiled for years on the margins of medicine. But an assemblage of factors around the swine flu vaccine — including confusion over how it was made, widespread speculation about whether it might be more dangerous than the virus itself, and complaints among some health care workers in New York about a requirement that they be vaccinated — is giving the anti-vaccine movement a fresh airing, according to health experts.

“Nationally right now there is a tremendous amount of attention on this vaccine,” said Dr. Thomas Farley, the New York City health commissioner. That focus has given vaccine opponents “an opportunity to speak out publicly and get their message amplified that they didn’t have at other times,” he said.

Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center, an advocacy group that questions the safety of vaccines, said the swine flu has “breathed new life” into the cause. “People who have never asked questions before about vaccines are looking at this one,” Ms. Fisher said.

The increased interest is frustrating to health officials, who are struggling to persuade an already wary public to line up for shots and prevent the spread of the pandemic. According to a CBS News poll conducted last week, only 46 percent said they were likely to get the vaccine. The nationwide poll, which has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points, found that while 6 in 10 parents were likely to have their children vaccinated, less than half said they were “very likely to.”

Read the full article.