And here comes our Ben Goldacre, explaining why "deeply suspicious" (which, to my ears, is a foreshortened phrase whose entirety is "deeply suspicious that I might sell a crapload of newspapers through a reckless disregard for public safety and the truth") is deeply stupid and deeply dangerous:
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. We should also remember that "teach the controversy" is a technique beloved of American creationists, and of antivaccination campaigners (with whom Fraser Nelson has also, oddly, flirted). These groups know that in our modern media, where truth is halfway between the two most extreme views, to insert doubt is to win.Aids denialism at the SpectatorBut debate is also good. So what kind of debate will the Spectator be hosting? They advertise a panel of "leading medical authorities". There are four people on this panel. One is Lord Norman Fowler. He is not a "leading medical authority".
Charles Geshekter is a professor of African history from the University of Chicago, and is therefore also not a "leading medical authority". He says there is no AIDS epidemic in Africa, simply poverty, and that belief in the epidemic was a product of racism and "western sexual stereotypes". In fact he calls it "The Plague That Isn't", and was on President Thabo Mbeki's notorious Aids Advisory Panel in South Africa in 2000.
RSS Feed
While I'd agree that denying the AIDS/HIV link is crap, what does this post imply about the ability of the public to tell crap from valuable medical information?
Because some parts of the public can't tell crap from valuable medical information.
Yea, if you call somebody a "leading medical authority", most people are not going to do any research to proof if they really are, they just shallows it.
Yes, but you've also got publicized information from actual leading medical authorities that does link HIV with AIDS. Shall we expect it's impossible for the public at large to differentiate the two?
The Spectator might as well be ignored completely, it's been dead in the water for years, desperately trying to trade on a reputation that's more or less outside living memory by now. Addison used to write for it (I think, I don't really care) - so what?
Cicada,
A mainstream newspaper publishing the 'controversy' alone, means people will question the real information (to varying degrees, no doubt) like it's some new breakthrough, by maverick scientists against Bid Medicine. Even the idea that somehow scientsts and doctors don't know the reams of information that *we very definitely do know* about HIV and AIDS, is dangerous.
Its like how creationists have somehow made it seem like we have very little information on evolution, and little direct causal evidence, when in fact there are hundreds of separate but interrelated streams of evidence, from DNA to fossils, to single ancestors, etc. Yet somehow, the idea has gained popularity and now there are actual 'sides' (as opposed to many unconvinced people).
*magazine
Another WTF moment!
A lot of people will choose to believe the crap because they aready want to believe it. 1. It makes life easier. 2. It plays into the hands of the chronically suspicious and conspiracy theorists. 3. It supports the beliefs that the medical community is using "the epidemic" to make money.
Much of the public simply doesn't want to spend the time and effort to distinguish fact from crap. They've got enough to worry about already just in their personal lives.
It gives me tired head to read denialist of any sort, be it truthers, antivaxers or these guys.
@Hawley wtf??
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.
Because there's nothing to discuss you twit. The science has been in for decades. This is like arguing that cancer is caused by demons. All you're achieving is making yourself look like and ignorant shithead.
As someone who used to work as an intern at an HIV research facility and who volunteered for vaccine trials and for the local needle exchange, I'm nauseated that this is even open for debate. We had many creationist christian fundimentalist zealots and moral conservatives attacking both our research funding and the work we did putting sharps containers in public parks to prevent infection from needle sticks. I can't help but think that this isn't the same group of insanely myopic and selfish folks who are pushing denial of this epidemic to prevent treatment because they think HIV is a punishment, on people, from god, for enjoying sex. I've seen many christian doctors and researchers in clinics and hospitals get attacked with this very same ideology by members of their families and churches.
To them, I say the same thing my truly christian colleagues have. According to the bible, Jesus wanted us to help the poor and heal the sick. What is so un-christian about using the scientific intelligence endowed to us by god to cure the sick and help the poor? Why would you want to actively attempt to push people away from factual based cures and treatments when they are poor, suffering, and dying? If they were getting leporacy from sleeping with gay men in 3 BC do you think Jesus would have denied them treatment to push his hidden agenda? I say hidden agenda because the only reason I can see to be so cruel and so irrational would be for either profit or political control. Are these guys insurance company shills trying to increase the cost of health care for people who would otherwise live reasonably healthy lives? Are they a secret group of racist homophobes trying to commit passive genocide? I wonder how they would feel if we turned the conspiracy machine on their intentions? Would they be so ready to dismiss evidence supported claims if they were the ones on the witch burning pole?
The Spectator. I have never and will never buy that rag.
The PT Barnum school of keeping the public informed...
I remember one proto-AIDs denialist who insisted that there was no such thing as an HIV virus. He kpet on at this even after he'd met someone who's *seen* one, claiming that she had no idea what she was talking about. She had a masters in Molecular Biology, and he was a yoga instructor.
To me, this illustrates the religious fervor that denialists bring to the table.
Why not throw all of these idiots into a modern ark. Ship them off to a desert island where all their crackpot ideas can run free? We can start a pool on when cannibalism will begins.
Ideas are great and questioning authorities is all well and good, but I am awaiting genotype results because my Atripla is no longer effective. I don't think a diet of beets and garlic will do it for me.
"Spectator throws out public safety, embraces sensationalism and AIDS Denialism" - now, that's a pretty damned sensationalistic headline, isn't it?
Using terms like "AIDS-Denialists" is inherently inflamatory and squelches a real debate. There is a small group of people, some scientists and some not, who support a hypothesis that AIDS is a result of a systemic immune system breakdown caused by drug toxicity and an overloaded immune system (in the west) and chronic poverty and malnutrition (in Africa). Are they right? Are they wrong? I frankly don't know. On the balance of current evidence, this hypothesis is probably wrong, yes.
But it could be argued that the most potent fuel to the fire of the "AIDS-Denialists" is the way the scientific establishment has dealt with them. Instead of dealing with the issues they raise rationally and foster a healthy debate, the most common reaction (with some exception, such as the generally well balanced 1997 Science review of the issue) has been name-calling, to refuse to debate, to shut down discussion, to refer to the "scientific consensus" as if it is an infallable deity, etc.
The term "AIDS Denialist" is a good example of this: implying that any dissenting views on AIDS are tantamount to denying the holocaust.
I have researched the AIDS dissidents' opinions, and feel, as a layman, that they are probably wrong. But you have to look at the bigger picture. The amount of money floating flowing into the medical establishment from relatively few sources can buy a lot of consent. People look at the example of people like Duesberg and feel that if they do any research that is in contrast to the mainstream consensus, they risk losing their funding, their jobs, and their careers. This has a chilling effect on research across the board, and sets back the cause of science.
There have been confirmed cases of large scale corruption on the part of, say, pharmaceutical companies - hiding unfavorable studies, having strong drugs approved for groups they have not been tested on for conditions they are only marginally useful for, flooding the airwaves with misleading advertisements, etc. The FDA is in a state of epedimic rot - full of influence from the pharma industry, discounting the role of nutrition in proper health, pricing any players but the multi-billion dollar corporations out of producing health products because of the onerous costs associated with being accepted, suppressing free speech, etc. I find this to be a much greater threat to the public health than some people with a crazy idea about AIDS, as wrong as they may be.
BoingBoing, a blog with a principal interest in free speech and privacy issues, ought to be covering the recent crack down of a slew of natural health companies, who can't afford the multi-million dollar process to have their time tested and low side effect herbs declared "approved pharmaceutical drugs". The FTC demanded one company to "turn over personal customer information, censure its health information, send a deceptive letter to its community, and agree that the FTC could spy on them and their associates for the next 20 years." That's a story that seems more relevant to BB's direction...
http://www.naturalnews.com/026970_health_the_FTC_freedom.html
For zyodei
"AIDS-Denialists" is inherently inflamatory and squelches a real debate." So is asshat wearing monkey fondler.
And what is this"real" debate would you like to have? Yes there is little open debate about existence HIV/AIDS's, for the same reason there is little debate that there is a giant monster that eats the sun every day causing darkness to fall. Yes there are a few Scientists who believe HIV/AIDS is caused by chronic malnutrition just as there are a few scientists that believe in the new earth theory and each group deserves to be scorned and ridiculed. Galileo burned at the stake for saying the earth revolved around the sun; and Jesus was nailed to a tree for saying "wouldn't be great if everybody was nice to each other for a change", now look at their bios.
There will always be idiots who have opposing opinions and ideas(nod to zyodei), but who says we have to listen to them. Holocaust revisionists are scum but at least they are not causing anymore death because of their ignorance and hate.
I think we should have debate on whether snorting cocaine seven days a week is actually bad for you are not, led by a panel of drug user experts.
HIV and AIDS are unrelated. The moon landing was fake. The holocaust never happened. All human problems can be traced to the spirits of aliens who were imprisoned in volcanoes billions of years ago. The earth is hollow and the mole-men who live on the inside are going to kill us all.
Crazy talk is crazy. You don't have a "debate" with the loony on the corner wearing his underpants on the outside who shouts about how jesus sends him messages through his cat. Why would you bother to debate similarly insane ramblings? Just because there are a few dozen people who share the same insane delusion doesn't make their delusion any less insane. Don't validate their lunacy by acknowledging it.
As for the gullible dupes who might fall for this crap and refuse to take their medicine, I think Darwin had a "theory" about that.
I read this article and had to sign up to make this post. (Love BoingBoing!)
There is an incredible article about the American Culture of Fighting by Deborah Tannen. It's called "Fighting for our Lives."
I read through the link posting section of the moderation rules, but since I couldn't find a direct link via google, I decided to upload it so any interested parties could read it. If this in some way violates a rule, please delete the comment.
http://www.filedropper.com/fightingforourlives
Thanks,
Byron
zyodei,
You can find a handful of crackpot researchers to support any theory. In this case, millions of people will die because of it. It seems the choice of language is apt after all, since AIDS in Africa is a holocaust of sorts.
In light of the spuriousness of your argument and in the interest of not offending your semantic sensibilities, I'll just refer to you as an AIDS flat-earther.
zyodei
You say "look at the big picture"
I do.
I look at people with little access to information and without the training to distinguish between real science and crap science. I look at those people taking in crap information dressed up in doctors clothes. I see those people dying because of badly drawn conclusions due to misinformation, spread by people who make money by spreading their crackpot ideas. I even see those people denying their children the care they need until too late due to the same misinformation.
The people can be good people. They can also be quite clever. Doesn't really matter how clever you are if you don't have exactly the correct training for the domain being discussed.
I am not a doctor or any sort of virologist or anything like that. I do however have training in cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience, philosophy (good for understanding logic and logic fallacies) as well as other specialist knowledge.
This knowledge (and the fact that I can read, and have access to, medical and science journals) gives me a decent base to judge the quality of the science in question.
My training in cognitive science gives me a decent understanding of how beliefs in bulls*** can be formed, and how hard they can be to change.
All science seems to point to a link between HIV/AIDS. In those locations where the DENIERS have gotten their way (like South Africa) we have seen incredible spikes in Aids deaths. This happened after a nutrition supplement was substituted for the regular HIV suppression cocktail.
Coincidence?
Coincidence that it matched predictions?
This is not really open for public debate because the general public (me included) cannot understand the technicalities. Scientists can debate the causal relationship, and they will if any information points to another cause. Anyone who can conclusively show another cause will get famous. Possibly get decent money as well.
In my field, if I can show that some core theory is wrong, then its kudos to me. Heck, I could get famous and get a well paid research job, doing research that excites me.
While there is no evidence, then these DENIERS should STFU, because their actions actually cause a lot of harm to real people.
More disturbing to me than the HIV / AIDS link denial is the implication that this makes about Free Speech. The idea that presenting an extreme view is undemocratic has popped up recently, generally in support of electronic censorship. This story seems to, in part, support that tyrannical premise: that people are too stupid to be allowed to hear all points of view.
Sure Thebes and people should be allowed to yell FIRE in a crowded theater. Let the idiots stand on the street corners and shout to who ever will listen, but keep the dangerous out of the main stream.
y, the spectator is a right leaning small circulation mag with ~77k sales, which seems to be having some tiff with the islington-no-nothing grauniad newspaper. mainstream it certainly isnt.
tbh the only print I bother with from the uk is Private Eye, which is ~200k.
@demidan: Galileo was not burned at the stake; he recanted under threat of torture. You may be thinking of Giordano Bruno.
@zyodei: Poverty and malnutrition are transmitted via bodily fluids? It didn't exist until the latter part of the 20th century?
One one side, you got a model which accurately predicts conditions under which the disease spreads, and has led us successful prevention and treatment strategies. On the other side, you have a model which has been proven ineffective, comes from entirely different sources in different regions, has no predictive power, and is generally pushed by all-purpose crackpots or religous lunatics. Hmm. No, I don't consider these to be equal.
I keep seeing your line of reasoning from Fox news and "conservatives." It goes like this: If we are trying to decide between two possibilities, the odds are 50/50. Either I'll win the lottery, or not: 50/50! I'll play twice if I have to-- I can't lose!
We have no obligation to respect bad math or bunk science. If believe in the ridiculous just because, well, you really want to, nobody can stop you. But don't call it science; that's the province, nay, the definition, of religion.
@Thebes Yes Thebes, as elitist as it may sound: most people do not have enough of a scientific background or medical knowledge to make informed decisions on the topic, even if evidence (and indeed, 'evidence') is presented to them. Need I refer you to the MMR 'controversy' to show you that this is the case?
This is the same for all people - we're all ignorant about different things, and at least some measure of trust and authority needs to be invested in actual experts.
Some of you seem to be missing the fact that The Spectator is being dishonest in how they are promoting this discussion. Calling this a panel of "leading medical authorities" gives this group (and ultimately the denialist movement) a perceived authority that they don't deserve. Two of the panelists have a medical background (though one hasn't done work in HIV/AIDS), and there's also a politician and an African history professor. Both of the doctors and the history professor have made statements disagreeing with the HIV/AIDS connection. A panel where everyone agrees doesn't sound like "spurring debate" to me.
I'd like to think that sunshine is the best disinfectant, but when a discussion is presented under such false pretenses it doesn't seem to me that this would help people who lack knowledge about HIV/AIDS distinguish fact from myth.
Nobody decrying this "denialist" documentary seems to have actually seen it. You're denouncing it based on what other sources report about it. I have seen "House of Numbers", and I think it's a very well-made documentary which deserves to be judged on its own merits, not a priori condemnation.
One thing that can't be said about "House of Numbers" is that the people interviewed in it aren't really 'leading medical authorities'. The filmmaker talks to pretty much every important figure in the history of AIDS research, including a couple of Nobel Prize winners, as well as patients, doctors, pharmacists and front-line health care workers. He starts with the question "Why are we even debating this?" and goes on to build a fairly convincing case that not only has there been scientific dispute about HIV from the very beginning, but many people around the world have a strong vested interest in stifling any suggestion that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS. Billions of dollars of health care funds depend on that unquestioned truth.
Everyone knows that HIV causes AIDS, the same as we know that the sun sets because of the rotation of the earth, not because it's eaten by a monster every night. But we know about planetary motion from centuries of observation, theorization and proof; the science is very sound. But we know that HIV causes AIDS largely because we've been told it does, not because we know the science behind it. The main thing that "House of Numbers" is how much has been erected on a remarkably frail platform of actual scientific research.
Why should there be any debate about something as unquestionable as the cause of AIDS? Because that's how science works: by constantly questioning, debating and building a greater and greater foundation of scientific proof. The hysteria generated by any question about the role of HIV in AIDS (of which this comment chain, and even Cory's original posting, are good examples) is standing in the way of science, not defending it.
The hysteria generated by any question about the role of HIV in AIDS (of which this comment chain, and even Cory's original posting, are good examples) is standing in the way of science, not defending it.
The pseudo-scientific bullshit exemplified by this pseudo-documentary is standing over the corpses of hundreds of thousands of Africans.
How many of your friends died of AIDS before the discovery of the HIV virus and the resulting drug therapies? Hardly anyone that I knew in the 70s and 80s is still alive. Funnily enough, since drugs targeting HIV have become available, hardly anyone has died.
Companies which manufacture and/or sell natural medicine in the United States are subject to regulation by the FTC and the FDA, and are required to support claims of a medical nature. I suppose the manufacturer of the Q-Ray bracelet has been tyrannized by the FTC as well, in your view.
Gotta love how "spurring debate" and "social experiment" in modern society have become convenient covers for spreading lies and disinformation.
/sad
"Why not throw all of these idiots into a modern ark. Ship them off to a desert island..."
Your suggestion reminded me of a science fiction story I read once (or, I believe, more than once).
Back in the early days of the AIDS epidimic, Duesberg was treated quite shabbily, and science was thrown out the door. Before he published his HIV != AIDS paper in 1987, he was a well respected cacer researcher. After he published that paper, he was completely ostracized from the scientific community. Before the paper, every single grant application he submitted was accepted. After it, every single grant application was denied (around 30 or so, not all AIDS related).
Even if he is wrong, back in 1987 there was not compelling evidence linking HIV and AIDS, and it seems strange that his hypothesis was dismissed out of hand and that he was pushed out of all scientific circles. Of course, maybe his methodology was just crap, or he has an antagonistic personality.
I found the following Harper's article to be pretty persuasive that there is something off in the AIDS community, even if it does not go as far as convincing one that there is no connection between HIV and AIDS. It describes the story of a highly cited study in Uganda, which internal audits found to be unreliable, but which the AIDS community and the NIH hold up as being a gold standard, as well as some other aspects of the story.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/03/0080961
And a rebuttal from scientist Gallo, with retort from an AIDS dissident group:
http://rethinkingaids.com/GalloRebuttal/overview.html
The problem is that large amounts of money can sometimes buy studies that are skewed or selected to produce favorable results, while if you have little money it will be impossible to produce results that meet all of the FDA guidelines. Some of these companies DO have scientific research backing up their claims, but that research does not meet all the bureaucratic requirements of FDA certification, so they count for nothing in the FDA/FTC worldview.
The problem, in general, with relying exclusively on the opinions of experts is that experts, by definition, earn their livelihood in a field; and thus there is some effect of them being less likely to voice opinions that go against their colleagues, for fear of damaging their reputation and thus their careers.
If you can reference any clinical trials of natural medicines which have indicated positive results not equivalent to a placebo response, and have been recognized by the scientific community (FDA or FTC recognition not required), then I'll be happy to read the reports.
The problem, in general, is that people see conspiracy where there is none. The reason why experts, or professionals, are hesitant to go against their training and knowledge is because they'll be held accountable for what they say is their professional opinion. Legally, by the government, and professionally by their professional association. Also, unless you have the credentials that would qualify you as an expert, you have no business stating an opinion on highly technical subjects in a public forum.
"But we know that HIV causes AIDS largely because we've been told it does, not because we know the science behind it."
Bullshit. Speak for yourself.
Some of us know people who died from the disease, some of us are trained scientists working with this or related issues. If you are ignorant about it, don't be so fucking arrogant to think we all are equally as ignorant about this subject as you obviously are.
Zyodei says "Before [Duesberg] published his HIV != AIDS paper in 1987, he was a well respected cacer [sic] researcher. After he published that paper, he was completely ostracized from the scientific community. Before the paper, every single grant application he submitted was accepted. After it, every single grant application was denied (around 30 or so, not all AIDS related)."
I just searched RePORT, the database of all Federally funded research for grants (at http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm) for grants awarded to Peter Duesberg and found grants funded in 1987, 88, 89, 90, and 91. All of which were R35's, a funding mechanism which existed at the time to provide "NIH Outstanding Investigators" with both release time from normal academic duties (such as teaching) and research funds. So your claim that "After [the '87 paper], every single grant application was denied" seems to be a complete and utter crock of shit.
"The problem, in general, with relying exclusively on the opinions of experts is that experts, by definition, earn their livelihood in a field..."
Ummm. No, that's not a problem. Scientific experts are experts for a reason. It's all to do a thing known as scientific method. Testable theories leading to hypothesis, etc. It kinda came into being and formalised itself in the 16th and 17th Centuries. If you want to go back to a time where belief in the supernatural defined the human experience, then please feel free. Just don't expect everyone to want to go there. Aids is real. It kills people. Modern healthcare techniques can lessen the impact of it. Non-experts spouting well-intentioned bs cannot.
Most of these posters have missed the point.
It's not AIDS denial. Neither is it, AIDS-denial denial -- surely both are as bad as each other.
Do you not see the danger here? Would you rather go to the Catholic Church for your family planning advice?
Ignorance exists.
The science of his studies was not good. There was a comment in the 1990's in Science and other journals from Duesberg where he blamed AIDS on gay's drug addled lifestyle. Despite there being a hippy lifestyle of promiscuous sex and drug addled behaviour a generation earlier that in no way led to AIDS. Despite no similar behaviour in the history of medicine leading to the clinical entity of AIDS. Despite it behaving more like a virus than anything else. And now that it's widely escaped beyond that population, he's still got his head stuck in the sand. It was obvious to me then and now that his denial was rooted in homophobia, not science. Yes, he deserved scorn then, he deserves it now. Yet he's still collecting a paycheck in the field, largely due to tenure.
"It's not AIDS denial. Neither is it, AIDS-denial denial -- surely both are as bad as each other."
Sorry, boingvad, but that is not so.
The two sides do not have equal merit. They are not equally bad. AIDS denial is not just bad, but evil (and stupid). "AIDS denial-denial" is quite reasonable. They are not morally equivalent. They do not have comparable integrity. They do not deserve equal time.
I also remembered thinking that Duesberg could have put his money where his mouth was back then, and innoculated himself with the "imaginary virus".
Duesberg's story contrasts well with Barry Marshall:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall
Both went against conventional wisdom, both lost grants, earned ridicule.
Ulcer treatment is now less expensive than it was, leading to a loss in money for Pharm and Medical interests. But Marshall knew he was right, drank a petri dish of pylori, contracted early stages of ulcers and eventually won the Nobel Prize. Medicine and science don't always hate the outlier. Marshall's grants get funded these days.
The similar HIV experiment is waiting for any denialist to try.
Perhaps Fox beating the rap and showing that they could knowingly lie to their consumers without repercussions has emboldened other media hegemonies into adopting similar behaviour.
Who cares what we do. It's bis-niihhhsss
*Starts dancing to Usher*
"Also, unless you have the credentials that would qualify you as an expert, you have no business stating an opinion on highly technical subjects in a public forum."
I assume you must be an expert in cryogenics who's been asleep for the past thirty years
TYPO:
Geschekter is not a professor at the University of Chicago. A short bio of him found from your supplied link has him as an Emeritus Professor of African History from Cal State Chico.
I heard the event was cancelled.
Well, I, for one, salute these brave denialists, who are speaking truth-to-power, and not letting the facts interfere with their gut-instincts.
Jews did WTC!
Swine flu vaccine is a cover for brain-control chips!
Earth is 5000 years old!
Scientology works!
Our opinions are perfectly valid, and we demand to be represented, otherwise your fascist nazis.
Yes, it would seem to be that way, but I stand by my statement. If you click the link on the left hand column of the results, for Project Number 5R35CA039915-06, you will see that they were all payments of a grant that had "Project Start Date: 30-SEP-1985 Project End Date: 31-AUG-1992."
So, while he was allowed to work out a grant that started in 1985, it is a true statement that he was never awarded another NIH grant after he published his paper in 1987.
That's just the way NIH describes any grant which was renewed. Any grant type has a specific period, usually between one (R35s for example) and four years (R01s for example). However, many grant mechanisms allow competitive renewal - ie you essentially write a new application asking for the project to be extended another funding period. In the RePORT database the most recent notice of award will show the the end date as the date that particular funding round finishes, but the start date as the first time you applied for the money. The final two digits of the project number tell you the number of times the grant has been renewed - in this case, it's "-06", which tells you this was the sixth time he'd successfully applied for renewal. Given that the old R35 mechanism was a one year grant, it means Dr Duesberg successfully applied for the R35 for the first time in 1985, then successfully re-applied for the grant each year until 1991. Each of those applications would have been competitive - ie required a peer review process which gave his application a score based on the scientific merit of the application. His merit score was then ranked against the merit scores of everyone else also applying for renewal in that funding year, and those with the highest x% of scores were funded, x being a function of how much money congress gave the NIH that year. What the RePORT stuff tells you is that he was consistently successful for seven years straight, and included at least four peer reviews which took place after the '87 paper was published. As someone who (as you may have guessed) has applied for NIH funding many times, I have to say getting seven renewals in a row is actually a remarkable achievement. What the RePORT system doesn't tell us is whether he continued to apply for R35s after 1991 but was unsuccessful (for whatever reason, including your alleged blacklisting by those members of the scientific community who would have been on the review panel), or whether that was the year the NIH stopped using the R35 (it doesn't exist any more), or whether he stopped applying for them for whatever reason, or whether there was a cap on the number of R35s anyone could get in a row (given that its intent was to provide release time for productive researchers, there may have been a limit on the number of years any one person was able to get one).
The one thing it certainly doesn't mean is that he had a single seven year grant which expired in 1992 - there's no such thing in the NIH funding system, and the "-06" at the end of the final award tells you this wasn't the case anyway - it would have been "-01" if this was the case.
Okay, I should've been more precise in my wording.
Unless you have expert qualifications, you have no business acting like you do, or claiming that you do, on public health issues in a public forum. People shouldn't need to suffer because they take a so-called "medical expert" at their word and without question. Also, it's irresponsible to not state that you are not an expert when making such statements.
In regards to expertise in general:
One of the five rules of conduct for professional engineers in the APEGGA Code of Ethics is that "they shall undertake only work that they are competent to perform by their virtue of their training and experience." Why do you think that might be? My guess is that the public could come to serious harm as a result of incompetency on the part of an engineer, structural or otherwise. The same applies here as well.
To quote his bio: "He was also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health from 1985-1992."
To quote "The funding of young investigators in the biological and biomedical sciences", by the National Research Council (from Google Books), "Another new long term grant, the Outstanding Investigators Grant (OIG or R35), also provides long term support (7 years) to proven investigators (146).
You put in an awful lot of typing to substantiate a factually wrong position!
I have seen nothing to dispute my basic point: Duesberg was a highly respected researcher until his published his paper in 1987, which was met not with engagement and open debate but rather with ostracism and scorn.
"In light of the spuriousness of your argument and in the interest of not offending your semantic sensibilities, I'll just refer to you as an AIDS flat-earther."
See, this is the whole problem. I make no statements whatsoever about the HIV/AIDS connection. Actually, I said that they are "probably wrong," hardly a ringing endorsement. But, just because I took the time to read and openly consider the "denialists" opinions, I am classed in as someone who is arguing that the sky isn't blue.
My principal concern is the chilling effect on scientific debate that comes from excluding those with unpopular opinions, and I hardly see what is spurious about that.
One could argue that the gay community in the 1980s, being free to express their sexuality in the open after having suffered from decades of oppression, had a pretty wild decade. As a group, there is evidence to suggest that they may have had high rate of drug use and promiscuity, possibly with more partners and with different drugs than they hippies. Thus, it was a valid hypothesis to test whether lifestyle elements might have been the cause the AIDS epidemic, even if it was wrong. Accusing Duesberg of being homophobic for pursuing this theory is disingenuous, although I can't really make any arguments about the quality of his science.
You could argue that he is stubborn and stupid for hanging on to this theory as long as he has. But, as I understand it, he has proposed well controlled studies that would put the issue to rest once and for all, and they have never been accepted or carried out, which is probably why he has soldiered on as long as he has.
My argument is this: from the beginning, in the scientific establishment, the minority ideas of Duesberg et al were not treated as valid theories to be debated and refuted, but heresy to be laughed at, scorned, and removed from the discussion entirely. Even if they are totally ass headed, that is absolutely not the way the scientific community should treat dissenting ideas.
Any time the scientific community excludes an unpopular theory without a fair hearing, it sets the pursuit of Science back.
I think The Spectator is unhappy that we've finally gotten somewhere in treating HIV/AIDS. Convening a debate to give airtime to useful idiots would also provide cover to some African leaders who want "more time to study the issue," as well as other rightwingers who'd like to throw sand in the wheels of medical progress.
Duesberg has never done so much as a minute's productive research into HIV or AIDS. He is a chemist by qualification, and has done good work in the past on cancer.
His arguments about HIV and AIDS are based mostly on his woeful understanding of epidemiology - a field of science in which he has no relevant training or experience. He is utterly unfamiliar with clinical medicine, infectious diseases or immunology.
That his harebrained ideas about HIV/AIDS could have gained any credence based on his status as a "scientist" beggars belief.
And the other BIG F#$%ING CLUE, from way back when, that it was something in the blood, vs. a drug/promiscuity/morality deficit was the hemopheliacs. Oh yes, those flagrant hemopheliacs with their parades and flamboyant lifestyles just taunted the fates.
Zyodei, nice try.
"If you have neither [Law or Truth on your side], bang on the table with your fist, loudly and with as much conviction as possible." Did anybody ever run a scientific study on the number of lawyers belonging to "flat-earth" groups?
Banging a fist on the table? You mean like putting my message in bold to stand out? If you read my messages, they are far from banging a fist on the table..but I don't think you did read my messages, because you missed a crucial point: I never took a position on the HIV-AIDS issue, except to say the AIDS dissidents are "probably wrong" (a word I used three times in my original post)
My whole argument throughout these threads has been that those with hypothesis outside the mainstream were not treated fairly by the scientific community.
It's an unsupportable leap of logic to conclude that this means I agree with their theories.
Yes, there have been some detailed posts refuting the HIV != AIDS hypothesis. But that's not my ax to grind, because it's entirely irrelevant to my initial point. If someone says that Duesberg's science was shit, well, that's relevant, but doesn't really detract from my central point that it is damaging to ostracize him for having wrong ideas. Personally, I have neither the time nor the resources to wade through the studies, and it isn't relevant to my life, so I am perfectly happy to say "perhaps that's true".
To be honest, YOU (whoever the reader is) doesn't KNOW for sure. I mean, Newton's law of gravity might seem relevant and useful for any calculation you can think of, and when you measure the speed of falling objects it is accurate - but it was eventually displaced by the more sophisticated general theory of relativity in special circumstances. So, you hold that the most valid theory of AIDS is that it is caused by a particular virus that spreads through bodily fluids, and that may be true - but it isn't wise to close off all debate on the matter, particularly in the scientific community; there may be other subtleties or factors that this theory does not take into account.
If I responded to a particular ad-personam attack, it was because it was penned by Antinous, BB lead moderator. But where in the world do you find the statement that I'm being discriminated against?
This whole comment thread reaffirms my basic feeling, which is this:
It's such an emotionally charged issue, that people have a tendency to lose their impartiality about it (and this is true on both sides of the fence). There have been four replies to me one this thread (from demidan, antinous, arikol, and you) where people put words in my mouth or assumed I have positions I do not have, and some pretty strong language too.
But I think only one or two people have dealt with my basic thesis, which I could summarize as:
The robustness of a scientific community is only as strong as its response to viewpoints that seem outrageous or contrary to the implicitly held assumptions of the community.
Zyodei,
I assume you're arguing your point because you're doing a gedanken experiment on the nature of science/belief and whatnot, but this happens to be one with more risk than most. Duesberg has been taken seriously. He has had his viewpoints responded to in a much more measured manner than most contrarians. His data has not convinced the vast majority of experts. HIV/AIDS is a continuing public health emergency, and putting doubt in someone's head may lead to them dying. You give the example of Relativity vs. Newtonian descriptions of gravity, which is interesting and fine to debate, but while rock climbing, I'd recommend you stick with the generally accepted concepts regarding gravity, rather than counting on exceptions. Public health is always a work in progress, and it is often very neccesary to work with the existing odds. I take the flu vaccine, as I often work with the elderly, though I know there is a chance that they could have guessed wrong in its preparation and it will offer no protection, and there is a miniscule chance I could have an adverse reaction. However, their is a greater than miniscule chance I could spread the virus, and be the vector that is responsible for someone's death. For both HIV and the flu, believing it's not really happening as a strategy has really been tried. This was the US policy while HIV was spreading. It's not effective. Entertaining and promoting hypotheses that have been nearly universally rebuked and as you agree are "likely wrong" may lead to more people disbelieving in the likely reality of HIV/AIDS, and contracting the disease and dying. I can't help feeling that spreading a viewpoint that likely leads to more people dying is wrong on several fronts and deserves ostracizing. His insistence on bucking the consensus and promoting a contrary path does not mean he gets anything approacing an equal spot at the table in terms of being regarded as an expert on HIV, and should not be allowed a forum to promote his views.
Another example of a contrarian viewpoint that has been considered is the hygiene hypothesis. The hygiene hypothesis runs counter to quite a bit of standard operating procedure for a lot of medicine. While aspects of this are taken quite seriously, if the major proponents said "stop handwashing and taking all antibiotics and surgeons should abandon sterile technique", it would likewise garner less support, and be deservedly ostracized.
Re the R35 being a seven year grant not an annual renewable: well, I stand corrected. It seems my memories of the R35 mechanism were off.
You mention I seem to have put "an awful lot of typing to substantiate a factually wrong position!" - well, you're making a serious assertion - that someone was blacklisted in his profession for expressing a contrarian viewpoint in an unrelated field - and I'm taking it seriously. As someone who has participated in reviewing NIH grants, the idea that a respected cancer researcher's grant applications to the NCI for cancer-related research would consistently be scored badly by multiple members of multiple research sections because he'd expressed a controversial view about a completely unrelated research field just.. doesn't ring true to me. At all. It's just not really how the process works. So I went looking at the RePORT database to see if that would clarify things. Which unfortunately it doesn't - as you point out, he received no new funding after 1987, but there's multiple reasons this could be the case - that he was blacklisted is simply one of the possibilities, and not a particularly convincing one at that. To even start making this case seriously, the onus is on you to provide some supporting evidence for your original assertion that "After [the '87 paper], every single grant application was denied (around 30 or so, not all AIDS related)". The RePORT system doesn't show unsuccessful applications, so all we have is your word for it that he proceeded to submit 30 or so grant applications, and that these were rejected. I'd be particularly interested in evidence he submitted grants in his established field of expertise (the molecular and cell biology of oncogenes) which then scored badly. On the other hand, evidence that he scored badly and was not funded to do research in a completely new field using methodologies in which he had no prior training (the epidemiology of HIV/AIDS) doesn't mean he was blacklisted - he would have scored badly in that instance even if he was proposing a completely uncontroversial hypothesis. You'd have to show he attempted to get funded to be trained in a new field (through one of the K award mechanisms perhaps) and/or attempted to get funded to do small pilot projects to produce preliminary data toward a larger project (such as an R03 or R21) and was consistently rejected for all of these before you'd be even vaguely convincing.
"The robustness of a scientific community is only as strong as its response to viewpoints that seem outrageous or contrary to the implicitly held assumptions of the community."
I would modify that to:
"A scientific community is only as robust as its response to unconventional or unusual viewpoints that are contrary to current scientific theories."
- Robust and strong are synonyms, so let's stick to rating robustness between low and high.
- An assumption, otherwise known as a hypothesis, can't be explicit without being a theory, and would therefore always be implicit.
- You challenge theories, not hypotheses, unless you're breaking down how the theory was formed, but then you'd be challenging the theory as well.
- Outrageous tends to refer to things that are unreasonable, or offensive, but can also refer to the unusual or unconventional. Let's go with the last two.
Not being pedantic, just trying to refine your thesis summary. What say?
Well, it is a serious assertion, and that's why I myself have spent so much time rambling away on this thread.
It is taken directly from the Harper's article listed above:
"Subsequently, his NIH funding was terminated and he has received not one single federal research dollar since his pre-1987 Outstanding Investigator Grant ran out. Duesberg lost his lab facilities and had to move twice within a few years to smaller labs on the Berkeley campus, where he spent much of his time writing futile research grant proposals asking to test his hypothesis that AIDS is a chemical syndrome, caused by accumulated toxins from heavy drug use. He lost his graduate students, who were warned that to emerge from his lab would blight their careers...He was “dis-invited” from scientific conferences, and colleagues even declared that they would refuse to attend any conference that included him."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/03/0080961
I remember reading elsewhere that most of those 25 denied research grants WERE AIDS related, but others, in his old area of cancer research, were also denied.
Now this might be because of his acerbic personality, it might be because his science was shoddy, and it might be because he was doing research outside of his area of expertise. Hell, the exclusion may have been justified. I don't know. But there is evidence to support that Duesberg was pushed out of the scientific community, and many fellow scientists took issue not with his theory, but rather with him personally.
But my argument was not so much about the debate in the public sphere, as in the scientific one. Was the causal relationship between HIV and AIDS demonstrated with a high degree of probability before the other hypothesis were thrown out? Did emotions or political pressure affect the scientific debate? That's what I'm questioning here.
The danger is, if people are dying, one could argue that everything possible must be done to prevent it, and this same logic can be used to stifle debate about the efficacy or safety of what is being done. Refer the same Harper's article above, the description of the Uganda mother/child transmission antiviral drug trial. The whole trial was a fiasco, missing records, erratic coding, the whole placebo section being thrown out even though it was in the original description, etc. The pharma company that requested the trial did two internal audits, both of which showed serious flaws. But the AIDS community was so eager to have SOME answer to the problem, that they eagerly accepted the results and ignored the problems with the study. "Why are you questioning this approval? Do you want to KILL BABIES?" Another study was never done.
It makes me think of another recent article in either Harpers or the Atlantic about the flu shot itself..it made a pretty good case that the evidence behind the efficacy of the flu shot is not concrete, based only on cohort studies with difficult to isolate variables. But, a simple double blind placebo study has never been done, because "it would be irresponsible to endanger people who might get the flu."
Maybe you're right..maybe I err on the side of over debate. Deep down, I trust people to make the right choices given the available information. I mean, do you think people will go out and have unprotected sex with a hooker because they're convinced that AIDS isn't transferred that way? Not likely, because there are many other health dangers as well. But in setting a precedent of condemning debate over a settled scientific issue where science is right, what if we later condemn debate over a "settled" issue where science is wrong?
I wrote that late at night. I knew it was sloppy, but I was tired. Thank you for putting what I wanted to say in much better words that I could myself.
while I enjoying an argument as much as the next guy, I don't enjoy knowingly posing a public health hazard, as, for instance, your argument may.
The thing is, where do you draw the line that it is worth stifling argument in the name of public health or safety?
The following article describes a similar unwillingness to question the established consensus in regards to the flu shot (hat tip to antinous, “To accept these results would be to say that the earth is flat!”) People argued that questioning the efficacy of the flu shot would discourage people from taking it, so to debate it endangered public health..of course, if the flu shot is not effective, that's not very logical.
Taking it to it's logical end, Bushco frequently said that it emboldened the terrorists to debate our anti-terrorism laws, and thus endangered public safety.
Seems like a bit of a slippery slope, no?
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1
(a pretty interesting article on its own)
"..."AIDS-Denialists" is inherently inflamatory and squelches a real debate...."
Well, hell, yes.
There are instances in which people should be called denialists, specially in situations in which their denialism is actually contributing to the unnecessary deaths of innocent people.
I can't think of any adjective that would not be inflammatory, such people don't deserved to be described in any kinder terms.
As for debate, what debate? The debate has been had, scientists have reached sensible conclusions, people following their advice are demonstrably healthier, so frankly the denialists need overwhelming evidence in order to make people take any notice of what they are saying.
If they where flat earthers you would expect nothing but a picture of a flat Earth from space, any further discussion should not even be encouraged (shame on you Spectator, shame on you).
The thing is, where do you draw the line that it is worth stifling argument in the name of public health or safety?
When, in the last decade, everyone who takes the drugs lives and everyone who doesn't take the drugs dies, it's time to put a sock in it.