I haven't read the latest issue of Harper's magazine, but apparently it contains a major article challenging the notion that HIV causes AIDS, as well as discounting the severity of the African AIDS epidemic. This is very troubling, especially since Harper's editor Lewis Lapham has generally been a good defender of science against the Bush administration's abuses. Say it ain't so.....
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I was out yesterday, and as such missed Lynn Margulis' blog tour stop at Pharyngula. For those who may not be familiar with Margulis, she's a professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and was the one who pushed the (now accepted) idea that chloroplasts and mitochondria in cells came…
Chris has been excoriating Tom Bethell (author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science") over on The Intersection and elsewhere (see, for example, here, here, and several posts here). However, since he's not yet done a takedown on Bethell's chaper on AIDS (titled "African AIDS: a…
Pity poor Peter Duesberg.
Back in the 1980s, he was on the top of the world, scientifically speaking. A brilliant virologist with an impressive record of accomplishment, publication, and funding, he seemed to be on a short track to an eventual Nobel Prize. Then something happened. The AIDS epidemic…
Lots of bloggers follow HIV/AIDS, although we haven't. Maybe because it's no longer an automatic death sentence, it has fallen off the public radar screen, but not because it isn't a huge public health problem. Just how big a problem seems to be a matter of some sensitivity for the Bush…
Don't judge before reading the piece, Chris. Only five of the 40-ish columns that comprise the feature deal with HIV-AIDS denial theory.
First, I'm not one of those who is convinced HIV doesn't cause AIDS, but it would be wrong to dismiss the notion that AIDS is a very special disease, with all sort of anomalous characteristics that strain at the edges of conventional diagnostics. So perhaps a little leeway should be granted a journalist whose work otherwise does meet high journalistic standards and who does appear to understand and respect the scientific process.
Second, the other 35 columns of Farber's feature are very troubling, but not because of anything to do with HIV epidemiology, but because they detail the tragic story of the Uganda nevirapine study, which she documents thoroughly. And the final section of the story, dealing with the aneuploidy-cancer hypothesis, is also worthy of a read. Farber devotes as much space to that topic as she does Duesberg's denial of an HIV link to AIDS.
So, yes, a complicated and controversial piece, one that probably would have been stronger without the the Duesberg material. But since when has skepticism been a bad thing?
Again, I am not convinced that Farber is right about the HIV conspiracy -- although I remain open to the idea -- but I don't think this subject deserves to be lumped in with climate change denial and other examples of right-wing refusal to accept reality.
Incidentally. A group of scientists has put together a list of errors and other problems with Farber's Harpers piece. It is here:
http://www.actupny.org/reports/denial_ErrorsInFarber.pdf
Worth a looksee, as well.
It should be pointed out that another prominant HIV-AIDS denier, in addition to those listed in the ErrorsinFarber letter, is Philip Johnson of wedge fame.
It was quite a surprise to read this piece. I'd like to see more scientists stating the same thing before I get behind such a statement...
Best,
D
I have come across one curious parallel between climate change skepticism and HIV-AIDS skepticism: there's a petition out there, "Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis" that reminds of me of the Oregon Petition for AGW folks. But the difference is the HIV-AIDS petition, which Farber says has 2300 signatures, includes a lot of respectable sounding MDs and PhD. Plus some journalists (like Farber) and experts from other fields like philosophy and astronomy.
A page devoted to the petition is: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/group.htm
Skepticism is in order. Nature, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine, among others, refused to print a letter regarding the petition, according to Wiki. But Science did.
The intelligent design folks, of course, also have such a list. Many on the HIV-denial list lack any credentials (James Hogan, for example, is a science fiction writer; others have a PhD or something in an area that's far removed from infectious disease epidemiology or virology. And even "prominent" scientists in one field can be totally clueless in others.
Indeed--it's not only right-wingers, but many on the left who deny HIV causation of AIDS as well.
Quite true. Like antivaccination conspiracy-mongering, HIV/AIDS denialism is the pseudoscience that elements of both the left and the right embrace. In the case of antivaccination, right wingers tend to embrace it because they see mandatory vaccination as unwanted government control, whereas left wingers tend to view vaccines as somehow "unnatural" to put in their children's bodies.
Chris, did you happen to see this article on one of the "Righter" sites?
Why I Quit HIV by Rebecca V. Culshaw
It's another Ph.D denying the link between HIV & AIDS. I tagged it to respond to it, but haven't had time yet. I'm still recovering from being so rudely awoken by all the Carnival of the Godless people.
I'm a scientist. Can someone point me to a reference that rebuts HIV/AIDs denial? Something like talkorigins.org would be nice.
John P,
Here's the link to the rebuttal be Gallo et al
http://www.tac.org.za/Documents/ErrorsInFarberArticle.pdf
Michael
It was a very touching and informative article. The HIV debate continues.