Author: Seth Kalichman

  • AIDS Denialism’s House of Cards

    AIDS was first reported by US physicians in New York and California in 1981 when young men and women were falling ill of diseases that are usually kept in check by a healthy immune response. It was soon apparent that these individuals’ immune systems were failing. Within just a few years the causal agent of the mysterious disease was discovered; a human retrovirus that would come to be named HIV. Soon after the discovery of the virus that causes AIDS, an antibody test became available and over the past 25 years more than two dozen drugs have been approved for treating HIV infection. HIV treatments improve the health and extend the lives of millions of people worldwide. Despite the thousands of published scientific articles that document these facts, a small group of rogue scientists and pseudoscientists continue to proclaim that HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV antibody tests are invalid, and HIV treatments are merely a pharmaceutical industry scam. Pseudoscientists ignore the volumes of epidemiological evidence that indisputably shows that HIV is sexually transmitted during vaginal intercourse, accounting for the AIDS crisis in Africa. Those who promote these false ideas are AIDS denialists, akin to Holocaust deniers who stake their claims by manipulating history. AIDS deniers are also similar to 9/11 Truth Seekers who warp principles of structural engineering to claim that the World Trade Center was imploded by the US government.

    AIDS denialism has recently come into the public eye through the death of one of the most notorious AIDS denialists, Christine Maggiore of Los Angeles. Maggiore was a vocal proponent of AIDS denialism and is well known for having refused to take steps to prevent the transmission of HIV to her children. Christine Maggiore tested HIV positive but later came to refute her own HIV diagnosis after learning of Berkeley biologist Peter Duesberg, who continues to question whether HIV could ever cause AIDS. As a credentialed scientist, Duesberg appears credible. Maggiore grasped at AIDS pseudoscience to support her wishful beliefs that HIV does not cause AIDS. Maggiore’s own baby was denied medications, and died at age three of what the LA coroner ruled was AIDS. Christine Maggiore herself died in December 2008 from pneumonia.

    AIDS denialism has gained additional recent media attention. One month before Maggiore’s death, an episode of the popular television show Law and Order – Special Victims Unit portrayed a woman of similar circumstances with the story built entirely around AIDS denialism. The Maggiore story and its portrayal on Law and Order have helped draw public attention to the ongoing problem of AIDS denialism.

    Also in the news recently is the stepping down of South African President Thabo Mbeki, who had refused to accept HIV as the cause of AIDS, blocked the use of HIV treatments, and failed to prevent the deaths of hundreds of thousands of South Africans. Like Christine Maggiore, Mbeki was influenced by AIDS pseudoscientists. He embraced the denialism of a few fringe scientists over the word of his own South African experts. But Mbeki is not the only head of state to bow to denialist propaganda. In the United States, former President George W. Bush’s refusal to lift the federal ban on syringe exchange for HIV prevention as well as his unyielding promotion of abstinence-only prevention programs provide examples of denialist public health policy. Pseudoscience is the lynchpin in all AIDS denialism, whether it is Christine Maggiore’s own personal tragedy or Presidents Mbeki and Bush’s public health disasters.

    All pseudoscience is grounded in belief systems that masquerade as science in the absence of any empirical basis. AIDS pseudoscience cherry-picks research results, misrepresents scientific findings, and refutes mainstream research results without basis. One of the peculiarities of AIDS pseudoscience is its near obsession with the original research that discovered HIV as the cause of AIDS, particularly the research of the famous and controversial virologist Robert Gallo. AIDS pseudoscientists focus on Gallo and the earliest of HIV research while ignoring the subsequent two decades of science. AIDS pseudoscience is also quite diverse and often contradictory. Some AIDS pseudoscientists proclaim that HIV does not exist at all while others claim that HIV is a harmless ‘passenger’ virus that does not cause AIDS. Other denialists claim that HIV does exist and does cause AIDS, but that the virus is not sexually transmitted. Despite the vast inconsistencies of various branches of AIDS pseudoscience, there is little debate or argument among themselves.

    If the denialists are right in saying that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, then what do they say does cause AIDS? AIDS pseudoscientists claim the causes of AIDS are poverty, oxidizing stress, substance abuse, and HIV treatments themselves. They say that the cause of AIDS differs depending on where people live. In the US, pseudoscientists claim that AIDS is caused by substance abuse and HIV treatments. In Africa where there is little substance use and HIV treatments have only recently become available, pseudoscientists state that AIDS is caused by poverty and stress.

    Invariably, AIDS pseudoscience bolsters conspiracy theorizing, the very foundation for AIDS denialism. These particular conspiracies promote the ideas that HIV tests are flawed and government researchers are working with Big Pharma to poison minorities and gays for profit. AIDS pseudoscientists generally make their arguments by manipulating scientific findings. There are, however, noteworthy examples of pseudoscientific experiments and even illegally conducted ‘clinical trials’ of fraudulent AIDS cures.

    There are also AIDS pseudoscientists who do not dispute HIV as the cause of AIDS, but claim that HIV is not sexually transmitted or is not transmitted by vaginal sexual intercourse. The spread of HIV is attributed to contaminated blood, non-sterile syringes, and anal sex. Despite decades of conclusive evidence that HIV is spread by heterosexual/vaginal intercourse, these contrarians claim that vaginal sexual transmission of HIV is a myth designed to suppress sexuality and promote condom use. Just as those who claim that HIV does not cause AIDS rely on pseudo-immunology, those who promote the idea that HIV is not vaginally sexually transmitted do so on the basis of pseudo-epidemiology. The most common examples of pseudo-epidemiology come in the form of selective reviews of research literature and cherry picked results. Just as pseudo-immunology causes harm by convincing people to disregard their HIV test results and persuading them to avoid HIV treatments, pseudo-epidemiology tells people that condoms are unnecessary during vaginal intercourse and ineffective at preventing HIV transmission during anal sex. Thus, just as pseudo-immunology fuels the denial of HIV as the cause of AIDS, pseudo-epidemiology tells people that they need not worry about using condoms.

    AIDS pseudoscientists have gained credibility via the credentials of a few rogue academics. Most AIDS pseudoscientists do not have academic affiliations. However, the few that do are the most persuasive. In addition to Berkeley biologist Peter Duesberg, a more recent AIDS pseudoscientist is Emeritus Professor Henry Bauer of Virginia Polytechnic University. Dr. Bauer has formulated a convoluted argument that HIV may not exist and if HIV does exist it could not possibly cause AIDS. To build his case, Bauer uses population-specific HIV testing data in relation to population-wide AIDS surveillance data. For example, he shows how gender distributions of HIV infections from military recruits tested for HIV in the 1980s do not reflect the US national AIDS cases more than a decade later. Bauer violates every simple rule of epidemiology by treating cross-sectional studies as if they were longitudinal, failing to differentiate HIV incidence from prevalence, and not distinguishing viral from bacterial diseases. Bauer also proclaims that people test HIV positive because the HIV test is easily fooled by multiple antibodies, or cross contamination. Most remarkably, he claims that Africans and people of African heritage are more likely to test ‘HIV positive’ because they have a greater abundance and diversity of antibodies that confound the test.

    Before becoming a leader among AIDS pseudoscientists, Henry Bauer was the Editor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration – a primary outlet for UFOlogy and the study of magnetic auras. He himself is among the world’s leading authorities on the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. That is right, the Loch Ness Monster. Nevertheless, Henry Bauer has become a major pillar in AIDS pseudoscience with a large internet following. Simply put he is telling us what anyone would want to hear, that HIV cannot cause AIDS.

    How does AIDS pseudoscience present itself as legitimate science? Aside from the obvious role of the Internet and ‘self-published’ books, pseudoscience has found its way into forums that are easily mistaken as scientific and scholarly publications. Until a few years back, AIDS pseudoscientists had their own homegrown outlet called Continuum, which was produced for the sole purpose of disseminating AIDS denialism and AIDS pseudoscience. Although most of the content in Continuum did not appear scientific, some of the more repugnant examples of AIDS pseudoscience did appear in Continuum. Most notorious was a pseudoscientific experiment conducted by the AIDS denialist Roberto Geraldo that used undiluted blood plasma in HIV antibody testing, violating the test procedures and protocols. He then used the results to claim that HIV antibody tests are invalid and that everyone tests HIV positive. Fortunately, Continuum went out of existence.

    The pseudoscience outlet Journal of Scientific Exploration printed Henry Bauer’s articles on HIV not causing AIDS, along side articles on paranormal activity and alien abductions. Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati, a toxicologist who claims HIV does not cause AIDS, published a case report of Christine Maggiore’s 3 year old daughter that contradicted the LA coroner’s findings to conclude that the girl died of an allergic reaction to an antibiotic. The paper was published in an outlet called Medical Veritas: The Journal of Medical Truth which has published other articles by Al-Bayati including “Analysis of causes that led to Eliza Jane Scovill’s cardiac arrest and death”, “Analysis of causes that led to subdural bleeding, skull and rib fractures, and death in the case of baby Averial Buie”, and “Analysis of causes that led to baby Ryan’s hemorrhagic pneumonia, cardiac arrest, intracranial bleeding, and retinal bleeding”. One author, several papers, one journal.

    The obvious pseudoscience outlets are not as disturbing as journals that appear far more scientific but are not mainstream. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, for example, is an online outlet for rightwing politically motivated articles and has become a home for AIDS pseudoscience as well. One article published in this journal reported a possible mathematical model to account for AIDS by oxidation, of course without any supporting data. They have also published several writings by Henry Bauer including one proclaiming ‘We all have HIV’ based on Giraldo’s pseudoscience. Most perplexing are those peer-reviewed scientific journals that have become home to AIDS pseudoscience. One notable example is the International Journal of HIV and STDs, a journal that I have published in myself. My experience with this journal has been that papers are sometimes peer-reviewed and other times not. Nearly every article that has been published that questions vaginal intercourse transmission of HIV has been published in this one journal. These selective review articles conclude that HIV is not transmitted during vaginal intercourse, all by the same few authors. What is most worrying about this instance is that pseudoscience becomes mixed with genuine peer-reviewed research making it difficult for the nonscientist to tease them apart.

    AIDS pseudoscience embodies the same characteristics as any other form of pseudoscience. AIDS pseudoscience has ideological, cultural, or commercial goals. There is rarely anything that even resembles research, and when there are pseudoscience experiments they are conducted to justify denialist beliefs. AIDS pseudoscience is built on exaggerated claims that lack precise measurements. When challenged, pseudoscience reacts with hostility. Like all pseudoscience, AIDS pseudoscience is almost always promoted by individuals who are not in contact with mainstream science. Pseudoscientists invoke authority for support of their ideas and their major tenets are not falsifiable. Explanations offered by AIDS pseudoscience tend to be vague and opaque. The concepts of AIDS pseudoscience tend to be shaped by individual egos and personalities. Pseudoscientists are particularly apt at providing selective evidence to support their own claims.

    What can we do about AIDS pseudoscience? The strongest remedy for AIDS pseudoscience is exposing it for what it is. Pointing out the illogical inconsistencies of AIDS pseudoscience can help distinguish it from science. Examining who AIDS pseudoscientists are and their fringe ideas can also help. As discussed above, Henry Bauer can prove that HIV does not cause AIDS and believes that hoax pictures of the Loch Ness Monster are indeed authentic. In addition to stating that HIV is harmless and that AIDS is caused by toxins, Peter Duesberg says that ALL cancers are caused by environmental toxins without ant genetic basis. Kary Mullis won a Nobel Prize for developing PCR and states that there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS. He also claims to have been abducted by aliens. It only stands to reason that we should question the claims of ‘scientists’ who have spent time with little green men as well as those who proclaim the existence of big green monsters lurking under Scottish waters. Critical thinking is the key to refuting pseudoscience and trust in science is the antidote for conspiracy thinking. AIDS pseudoscience and denialism will not simply go away if ignored and more than will intelligent design and 9/11 truth seeking. Each of us has a responsibility to think critically and to debunk pseudoscience every chance we get.

    Seth Kalichman is the author of Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy published by Copernicus Books. All royalties from the sale of Denying AIDS are donated to purchase HIV treatments in Africa. For more information visit Denying AIDS.

  • Pay me, pay me, pay me my money down

    The story to date: bankers and financial fidgeters made a great many stupid reckless positively inebriated investments that depended on the ridiculous premise that real estate prices would go on inflating forever as if no living bankers had ever heard of such a thing as a bubble; to the astonishment of the experts, real estate prices suddenly stopped inflating and began to do the other thing with ever-increasing speed; trillions of dollars turned out never to have existed except in the imaginations of the ‘experts’; the US economy turned into a heap of rubble, and the economy of the rest of the world followed suit; the US government, guided by the savvy B-school president and his friend Hank Paulson, formerly of Lehman Brothers, one of the many burst bubbles littering the landscape, dumped $350 billion of public money into the banks with the promise of more where that came from and with no requirements for transparency or accountability or even telling anyone where all the money would go. Got that? Next act.

    [E]mployees at financial companies in New York, the now-diminished world capital of capital, collected an estimated $18.4 billion in bonuses for the year. That was the sixth-largest haul on record, according to a report released Wednesday by the New York State comptroller.

    That’s interesting, isn’t it? Employees at financial companies in New York are the very people who caused this global train wreck and the drastic impoverishment of millions, perhaps billions of people – and having brought off this feat of talent and dedication, they were rewarded with large bonuses by the very institutions that are being shored up by billions of public money (money which therefore cannot be spent on health insurance or education to name just two items). Rich, isn’t it? They’re financial wizards; that’s why they’re paid the Big Bucks; in their financial wizardry they make the global economy go pffffffffffffffffffft; so therefore accordingly as a result, they get some more of our money to make them that little bit richer and us that little bit poorer.

    What could be fairer or more sensible than that?

    That question is ironic. And yet, and yet…they don’t see it. They think they really have earned it, and deserve it, and should get it, and should go on getting it, and should not be told they should not get it.

    “People come here because they want to work hard and get paid a lot for working hard,” one investment banker said Friday…“My bonus is ‘shameful’ — but I worked hard to get it,” said John Konstantinidis, a wholesale insurance broker.

    They think they deserve it because they worked hard. I can think of a couple of problems with that right off the top of my head. One is that they are not the only people who work hard, yet very few people get the kind of bonuses that Wall Street hotshots get. The other is that one may work very hard in order to ruin everything, and it is not obvious why the mere working hard should merit truckloads of money.

    “On Main Street, ‘bonus’ sounds like a gift,” he said. “But it’s part of the compensation structure of Wall Street. Say I’m a banker and I created $30 million. I should get a part of that.”

    Say you’re a banker and you made $300 million dollars disappear – should you get a part of that?

    Oh look, they’ve gone.

  • Samantha Power to Take Job at NSC

    Author of A Problem From Hell to be senior director for multilateral affairs at the NSC.

  • Anti-Semitism in Venezuela, Egypt and Iran

    Nostalgia for Auschwitz and other japes.

  • Octuplets’ Mother Plans Exciting TV Career

    Will portray a childcare expert stranded in the wilderness with only a knife and a pacifier.

  • No Reason to Worry About Thimerosal in Vacs

    Researchers find no risk of thimerosal in vaccines causing brain problems.

  • Drink Coffee, See Dead People

    Ben Goldacre takes a closer look, finds the usual confusions; academics are sadly unblameless.

  • Octuplets Not Really an Occasion for Rejoicing

    ‘The cost of taking care of multiples is huge. It’s not going to finish when the babies go home.’

  • The Logic of Bonuses for Bad Performance

    The bonuses for 2008 were the sixth-largest on record and paid for by taxpayers. What’s the thinking here?

  • Bankers Defend Their Bonuses

    Say they work hard, ‘earn’ their bonuses; call disagreement ‘socialism.’

  • Mother of Octuplets Has Six Children Already

    So she needed fertility treatments because…

  • John Patrick Diggins

    ‘He was the most philosophical-minded of the American historians,’ said the political historian Paul Berman.

  • Obama Calls Wall Street Bonuses Shameful

    Rewarding themselves for trashing the economy and causing mass impoverishment not okay.

  • Women Gather to Cheer Female Submission

    Signers affirm that women and men were designed to reflect God in ‘complementary and distinct ways.’

  • Michelle Goldberg on Tragic Ted Haggard

    By preaching against homosexuality and allying with anti-gay politicians, he caused real damage – and trapped himself.

  • Abu Hamza Gets it Wrong Again

    If a husband rapes a wife, she might call the cops, or ‘accept it with laughter and embarrassment.’

  • Forced Marriage in Syria

    Muna, 15, dreads being married off to cousin who hits his mother with an iron bar.

  • FGM in Denmark

    A Danish woman has been convicted of having two of her daughters genitally mutilated.

  • One fine distinction

    Buruma is at it again.

    Dutch criminal law can be invoked against anyone who “deliberately insults people on the grounds of their race, religion, beliefs or sexual orientation.” Whether Mr. Wilders has deliberately insulted Muslim people is for the judges to decide. But for a man who calls for a ban on the Koran to act as the champion of free speech is a bit rich.

    No, not exactly, and not necessarily. Being a champion of free speech does not necessarily mean being a champion of absolute free speech with no exceptions whatever. It can mean, for instance, defending free speech construed more broadly than to allow one anti-speech law but still more narrowly than to permit another. It’s not really particularly rich for Wilders to think, for instance, that the Koran has some dangerous content while Fitna does not. I (for one) think Fitna does have some dangerous content, but I think the Koran has more. I wouldn’t call for a ban on the Koran, for many reasons, but I think Buruma’s disdain is too easy.

    Comparing a book that billions hold sacred to Hitler’s murderous tract is more than an exercise in literary criticism; it suggests that those who believe in the Koran are like Nazis, and an all-out war against them would be justified. This kind of thinking, presumably, is what the Dutch law court is seeking to check.

    One, I think that reading is strained; I think comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf suggests that the Koran is like Mein Kampf. But two, which is more important, notice that Buruma says nothing to show that the Koran is not in fact like Mein Kampf. He says nothing to show that in the rest of the piece, either. Well – what if it is? If it is, then there may be a problem, right? If it is, then covering our ears and pretending it isn’t may not be the best idea. It wasn’t the best idea in the case of Mein Kampf and it may not be the best idea in the case of the Koran either. Yet Buruma seems to ignore that possibility.

    One of the misconceptions that muddle the West’s debate over Islam and free speech is the idea that people should be totally free to insult. Free speech is never that absolute. Even — or perhaps especially — in America, where citizens are protected by the First Amendment, there are certain words and opinions that no civilized person would utter, and others that open the speaker to civil charges.

    Yes; there are libel laws, for instance. But are there laws against ‘anyone who “deliberately insults people on the grounds of their religion [or] beliefs”‘? I don’t think so, because if there were they would probably be (and be found) unconstitutional. Do let me know if there are any such. If I’m right, it’s not a ‘misconception’ to think that free speech includes the idea ‘that people should be totally free to insult.’ Incite hatred against, no, perhaps not (depending on the circumstances etc) but just plain insult, yes. That is, indeed, part of free speech. Why? Well, because one might need to call some corrupt lying hack a corrupt lying hack, and there’s no way to have laws against insulting people while still protecting the freedom to call a corrupt lying hack a corrupt lying hack. In other words, free speech is a basic part of political freedom.

    If Mr. Wilders were to confine his remarks to those Muslims who do harm freedom of speech by using violence against critics and apostates, he would have a valid point. This is indeed a serious problem, not just in the West, but especially in countries where Muslims are in the majority. Mr. Wilders, however, refuses to make such fine distinctions. He believes that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.

    But Mr Buruma is perhaps making one fine distinction too many. That is because violence is not the only problem, and it’s either evasive or naïve of Buruma to imply that it is. There are Muslims who do harm freedom of speech by using laws or UN human rights bodies or rhetoric or threats of violence or social pressure against critics and apostates – so it’s just way too easy and too comfortable to pretend that the only problem is with actual overt physical violence. It’s hard to believe that Buruma has been paying too little attention to be aware of this.

    Presumbably he’s worried about stirring up hatred of (and violence against) Muslims in general, and that is of course a valid worry; but he shouldn’t be evasive, because there are other valid worries in play.

  • A piece of the true cross

    I went into Bartell’s (a drugstore chain; think Boots if you’re in the UK, but not as nice) yesterday, and was skimming along an unfamiliar aisle when I stopped, amazed. There in front of me dangling from those little rods that packages dangle from, were packages of Foot Detox Pads. Kinoki Cleansing Detox Foot Pads, to be exact. They’re real! Sense About Science didn’t just make them up!

    There were before and after pictures on the box: clean white pad, then grubby brown pad. Yes but as Sense About Science points out, the pads contain vinegar and herbs and they make the feet sweat: the brown is from moisture and vinegar and herbs, it’s not a nice brown smear of toxicity.

    There’s a box on the back with a disclaimer.

    Note: These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

    So it’s just some kind of mysterious ritual then. Okay.

    Underneath the box is a different kind of advice.

    It is best to consult a qualified alternative medicine professional or holistic practitioner to determine your personal detoxification needs.

    Oh yes? What does that mean? What is a qualified alternative medicine professional? What is a qualified holistic practitioner? What do alternative medicine professionals and holistic practitioners learn during the course of their qualification training that teaches them how to determine anyone’s detoxification needs? Since biologists and chemists are unable to find any evidence of such a thing as a detoxification need, one has to wonder exactly what professionals and practitioners are trained to look for, and with what tools. Do they do sciency-looking taps and listens and probes? Do they produce sciency-looking instruments that are actually just mock-ups of some kind? It would be very interesting to know.

    Update: I forgot to say, they cost $19.95. For some worthless bits of vinegar-soaked gauze!