Peer Reviewing Peter Duesberg – REJECTED—RETRACTED—REJECTED Again

This summer’s saga of Peter Duesberg’s Medical Hypotheses retracted article should probably be put to rest. The sad story of this broken scientist has been told many times. Here though Duesberg reaches an all time low as he teams up with pseudoscientist Henry Bauer to yet again claim that HIV is harmless.

Duesberg and his long time accomplice David Rasnick along with Loch Ness Monster Scholar Henry Bauer published the article “HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS – A new perspective” in the non-peer reviewed journal Medical Hypotheses. The article focused on the South African AIDS epidemic and research reported by Harvard scientist Dr. Pride Chigwedere in the respected Journal of AIDS. Duesberg disputes the death of over 300,000 South Africans and 30,000 babies unnecessary infected with HIV. Duesberg and Rasnick have a stake in denying AIDS in South Africa because they advised former President Thabo Mbeki to deny AIDS and delay HIV treatments. Duesberg’s ideas were so flawed that the publisher, Elsevier Science, took the unusual step of retracting the article.



The authors first tried to publish the article in the Journal of AIDS as a commentary on the Harvard study. But Duesberg was rejected after peer review. Of course Duesberg accuses the review process of corruption and unfairness. The authors said the following, “A precursor of this paper was rejected by the Journal of AIDS, which published the Chigwedere et al. article, with political and ad hominem arguments but without offering even one reference for an incorrect number or statement of our paper (available on request).”

Not surprisingly, requests for the reviewer comments are not honored; leaving us to imagine what the peer reviewers said about Duesberg's article. I decided to undertake a simulated peer review of the Duesberg article.
As the Editor in Chief of a peer reviewed journal, I figured, why not?

I took several steps to perform as close to a true peer review as possible. I stripped the text of all identifying information – the authors' names were removed from the paper. The text, tables and figures were cut and pasted to create a double spaced manuscript document suitable for blind review. I asked three leading researchers with expertise in South African AIDS to review the paper. None of the reviewers had any interest in AIDS denialism and none was aware of the Duesberg article. Here are my instructions:

"The attached manuscript is not under consideration at the journal which I edit, AIDS and Behavior. The paper is a critique of a modeling study of AIDS in Africa. This critique is a real manuscript and I am seeking peer reviews. Once you complete the task, I will inform you of what this is all about. I am asking that you, (1) Review the paper as if it were submitted to a journal of the caliber of Journal of AIDS or an equal level public health journal. (2) Provide written comments for the authors (no more than 1 single spaced page). (3) Recommend a decision to reject outright, reject with the option to resubmit, or accept the paper.”

All three reviewers recommended rejection. The simulated reviews offer a glimpse of what may have been raised by the Journal of AIDS. The consistency of our three independent reviews is remarkable.

Medical Hypotheses would probably have rejected the paper if only they sent it out for peer review.

Why Peter Duesberg continues to humiliate himself by ignoring science and affiliating with pseudoscientists remains a mystery.

The unedited blind reviews follow.

Review #1

This paper is an attempt to rebut a recently-published estimation of the lost benefits of antiretroviral therapy (ART) use in South Africa. The original paper essentially argued that by failing to implement an ART program that was “reasonably feasible” at the time, the South African government failed to prevent 330,000 deaths and 2.2 million person-years. The authors of the current article believe that the estimate is overblown and unrealistic; furthermore they argue that HIV does not cause AIDS. For the latter argument, apart from a very few scientists who believe HIV does not cause AIDS, there is broad scientific agreement and decades of scientific evidence that contradicts this claim of the authors. I cannot see why JAIDS would want to (re) engage in this obviously dead-end debate.

In addition, the paper has a number of methodological flaws, as noted below. I would therefore recommend rejection.

Major comments:
You fault Chigwedere and colleagues for overestimating the number of deaths averted, but the data that you use to revise (downward) his estimate is obviously wrong. Who but an AIDS denialist would believe that a) the South African mortality registration system would yield an accurate count of deaths due to HIV/AIDS and b) that 1 death per 1000 HIV-positive people per year were anything close to an accurate measure of the rate at which people with HIV/AIDS die. Even a back of the envelope calculation is enough to show that this estimate is off by several orders of magnitude: If the average person, untreated, with HIV/AIDS in South Africa lives 10 years as has been roughly shown in several other African natural history studies, then on average (assuming constant rates of infection) about 10% will die per year. This number is clearly much closer to the truth and 1 death per 1000 HIV-positive person per year is obviously wildly off target. In short, mortality registration is a very poor and inaccurate measure of HIV/AIDS deaths and cannot and should not be trusted to estimate how many people with HIV are likely to die per year.

You make much of the fact that the population in South Africa actually increased during the time period under consideration, but fail to realize that population can increase even in the face of large number of HIV/AIDS deaths; these two things are not mutually exclusive as you imply. The question is not whether the population increased – you can still have an increasing number of deaths accompanied by and increased size of the total population if there are more births or more immigration. Rather, the question is whether deaths from HIV/AIDS increased and how many could have been averted if treatment had started earlier than it did. Further, you state that “since the African HIV-epidemics coincided with steady and massive growths if the affected populations, we conclude that HIV-epidemics are not likely causes of AIDS epidemics.” In light of the above, this makes no sense at all. The assertion that because there has been population growth HIV epidemics do not likely cause AIDS epidemics is illogical and unscientific.

You seem to miss the point about vertical transmission, either unwittingly or purposely. When it comes to estimating the rates of vertical transmission, you fail to acknowledge that several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown definitively the positive impact of ART in reducing the probability of vertical transmission. In other words, it is well established that antiretroviral drugs can help prevent a significant amount of vertical transmission, a fact you prefer to ignore.

You mix up population prevalence and antenatal prevalence, which, importantly, measure 2 different things. These things cannot be used interchangeably. Your table 1, 2nd column is “HIV in the South African population” yet the data you display there are the national antenatal statistics, very different indeed from the population prevalence that is implied. The same is true of your 2nd paragraph on page 6.

You further mix up prevalence and incidence, again, basic epidemiological concepts. Page 20, graph b is NOT HIV incidence as labeled at the bottom of that page, but rather annual antenatal prevalence.

You imply that toxicity (in the context of vertical transmission) is universal to all who use ARVs. You fail to mention or quantify the frequency of these events; nor do you meaningfully weigh the pros and cons of receiving ART and avoiding an HIV infection compared to the likelihood of a severe and debilitating side effect. Every drug has side effects and can therefore be toxic. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the risks, something that you ignore by repeatedly raising the “toxicity” alarm without quantifying its frequency or severity. Asprin has side effects and taken at extreme doses can cause toxicity. But that does not mean you shouldn’t use asprin when you have a headache.

Reviewer #2

I think we are long past the issue of whether HIV causes AIDS. I think it is very important to be open to other ideas including controversial ones. But even this primary issue is not taken on in a very convincing manner.

The basic argument is that if HIV is really responsible for so many deaths, why aren't they reflected in the death rates. I'm not a demographer, but the demographic projections I have seen for almost all of the hyperendemic countries still allow for substantial population growth even with AIDS.

South Africa is a country where there is a lot of denial and silence about when and whether someone dies of AIDS, so it would not be surprising to see a lot of underreporting in official cause of death. So the 1 per 1000 reported HIV-death rate (or even 2.5%) is not at all credible.

The rates of HIV prevalence are grossly overstated (given as 25-30%). Actually the overall rate for the population over 2 in South Africa in 2008 in the HSRC survey was only 10.9%. So the author's HIV-attributable mortality is widely off the mark.

As I look at the numbers, it is not unreasonable that a country such as South Africa could be growing at about 600,000 per year while at the same time experiencing 66,000 excess deaths per year from HIV/AIDS.

The authors do make a valid point that we may be underestimating the long-term toxicity of ARVs.

But I do not see value over all in this paper and would not recommend if for publication (i.e. reject outright.)

Reviewer #3

This manuscript responds to a recent study that found that in South Africa, at least 3.8 million person-years were lost due to delays in implementing ARV/prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) programs because of beliefs that HIV was not the cause of AIDS and that ARV were not useful to patients (Chigwedere). The manuscript raises two issues: (1) What evidence exists for the huge loss of lives? And (2) What is the evidence that anyone would have benefited from the ARVs? The manuscript also raises the question as to whether HIV is a passenger virus.

Overall, the manuscript does not provide a convincing or logical argument to counter the assumptions made by the Chigwedere study. For instance, while the manuscript provides some evidence for their hypotheses, the authors do not address some of the claims of the Chigwedere article. For instance, the burden is on the authors to counter Chigwedere’s statement that “HIV satisfies all of Koch’s postulates…and all of…Hill’s epidemiological guidelines for assessing causality.” I would recommend rejecting the manuscript for publication based on its lack of logic in its arguments against the Chigwedere study, but also in the presentation of the authors’ own hypothesis.

In the first section of the manuscript, the authors state that there is no evidence of huge losses of life. The data are presented along with the assumption that population growth could not have occurred concurrently with an HIV epidemic. This assumption does not demonstrate knowledge of basic population dynamics or demography (e.g. a population can grow as long as birth rates are higher than death rates). The authors seem to conclude that HIV-related death and population growth are mutually exclusive, which is not true.

The authors point to data that only 2.5% of total registered mortality were due to HIV-deaths.

The authors do not address (1) issues of quality of these data, and more importantly (2) the attributable fraction of mortality resulting from HIV-related deaths. The counter-factual of how many deaths from TB, for instance, would have been avoided if HIV had been reduced is not considered.

Page 9 – the authors assume that all pathogenic viruses “act” the same in a given population. What is the basis of this assumption? Are there exceptions to this (e.g. other viral STIs?)

In the second section of the manuscript, the authors state that there are unresolved problems with the belief that AZT/Nevirapine inhibit HIV. The authors do not address the evidence (notably those cited by Chigwedere) that indicate (using “gold-standard” epidemiological studies) that AZT/ZDV are effective.

On pages 10-11, the authors point out some of the negative outcomes resulting from ART and PMTCT. However, the authors do not indicate how common these outcomes are and whether the burden of these outcomes are greater than the burden associated with HIV infection. The authors then make a conclusion that the negative impacts of treatment means that they do not have any benefit, which is not a logical conclusion.

Damage Done: Why We Should Care About AIDS Denialism

Is AIDS denialism a problem? How widespread is AIDS denial? Are people who question that HIV causes AIDS given any attention?

People who care about HIV/AIDS are well aware that misinformation undermines prevention and treatment efforts. The spread of myths takes its greatest toll on the Internet, where pseudoscience is easily mistaken as science. There are perhaps thousands of people who refuse HIV testing, ignore their HIV positive test result, and avoid treatment because denialists persuade them that there is a debate among scientist about what causes AIDS. To many of us AIDS denialism is undoubtedly a significant social problem. But what is the evidence? What objective data do we have that says AIDS denialism is rabidly undermining AIDS prevention and treatment? On what basis should we think AIDS denialism is widespread?


UPDATED May 9, 2009

Only recently has social science research started to examine AIDS denialism.A survey of Gay and Bisexual men in 4 US cities found that 45% believe “HIV does not cause AIDS” and 51% believe that “HIV drugs can harm you more than help you.” This finding is remarkable because Gay men in the US may be among the most AIDS educated in the world. Or so we have thought.


One in five men and women in Houston believe that “AIDS is an agent of genocide created by the US Government to kill of minority populations.”

A study of people living with HIV/AIDS shows that 23% believe “There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS” and 36% say “there is a debate among scientists about whether HIV causes AIDS.” (Kalichman et al., 2009, in process)

In South Africa, where AIDS denialism perpetrated what South African advocates have called crimes against humanity, 42% of people at high-risk for HIV/AIDS believe that medicines for AIDS do more harm than good.

AIDS denialists actively undermine prevention and treatment

AIDS denialists persuade people that AIDS charities, such as Product (RED) Campaign, are fraudulent. Denialists have handed out anti-(RED) flyers at promotional events and taken other actions to undermine the charity.





AIDS denialists stage activist-style events and distribute AIDS denialism literature at community health fairs, gatherings, and other social events.

AIDS denialism is responsible for the death of 350,000 South Africans and 35,000 HIV infections in babies could have been prevented if not for AIDS denialist policies.

AIDS denialists organize campaigns telling people not to get tested for HIV. The testimonials of people with HIV who have chosen not to take HIV treatments are used to persuade others to refuse treatment.


AIDS denialists have inspired heads of African states to concoct cures for AIDS, including the President of Gambia. AIDS denialists bolster the sale of herbal cures and other snake oil. The proliferation of profiteering from fake AIDS cures is a direct outgrowth of AIDS denialism.

AIDS denialists try to influence public opinion and social policy.

AIDS denial has seeped into the mainstream media and popular culture with endorsements from the rock band Foo Fighters and
comedian Bill Maher, and denialists have gained access to major outlets like Harper’s Magazine and Scientific American .

The most organized AIDS denialism group regularly issues press releases to create an image of legitimacy that have been picked up by mainstream media.

AIDS denialists senselessly caused the stop of pediatric HIV medication trials in New York.

Conspiracy theorizing joins AIDS denialism with various anti-government and hate groups. (click link and search Rasnick)


AIDS denialists try to influence public policy by meeting with policy makers, such African leaders and members of the US congress.

AIDS Denialists file libel suits against those who call them on their conspiracies and expose them for their nuttiness.
They have infiltrated criminal courts and hijacked health policies.


Searching the Internet shows that AIDS denial is widespread.
AIDS denialist groups are active in several countries, including HEAL Groups and other denialist support systems that exist in most major cities.

There are hundreds of homemade AIDS denialists videos posted on the Internet. Gary Null has produced feature length films that pose as documentaries on YouTube. Robin Scovill, husband of the late Christine Maggiore, and Robert Leppo produced “The Other Side of AIDS” as a full length film. Another well-financed pseudo-documentary on AIDS is ”House of Numbers” which premiered at the 2009 Nashville Film Festival. The still image to the left shows filmmaker Brent Leung on the set. Notice AIDS Denialst and conspiracy theorist David Rasnick is present as well.

There are AIDS denialist groups active on every continent except Antarctica (see links on this page) with denialism escalating in the US, Greece, Australia, India, and Latin America.

AIDS denialism is a threat to public health and demands our attention. Ignoring AIDS denialism is itself a state of denial that does not solve the problem. Exposing AIDS denial is only a start to reducing its harms.

When Denialists Get Their Due, Do We All Pay?

When AIDS denialists are ignored they are of little consequence. Damage is done when the false hope of denialism captures the attention of people diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. Denialism also offers a false debate that policy makers can use to evade caring for people affected by AIDS. Another price that society pays for denialism comes when denialist claims are taken seriously. Investigating the rantings of denialists is a distraction as well as a waste of precious resources.

One example is the notion that Africa’s AIDS epidemic is the result of HIV contaminated medical practices. The idea that HIV spread in Africa via contaminated medical instruments is derived from a theory of how AIDS originated in Africa in the first place. This theory states that African bush hunters became infected with a non-human primate virus, Simian Immune Deficiency Virus (SIV) which then mutated and was spread through reused vaccination syringes and other medical equipment.

David Gisselquist has used this theory to argue that the African AIDS crisis is the result of health care practices, not sexual transmission of the virus. Gisselquist has published several articles in the International Journal of STD and AIDS. Gisselquist has not done research of his own and selectively reviews past research to support his views. Why is his work on AIDS in Africa published mostly in this one journal? Were his papers peer reviewed? When I asked David Gisselquist whether the International Journal of STD and AIDS peer reviewed his papers his response was a simple smile. Gisselquist has said "For the last 15 years, the AIDS establishment somehow got on to the notion that we need to scare people about sex to prevent HIV transmission". The problem is not what Gisselquist says, but rather that policy makers have listened.

In response to Gisselquist’s proclamation that AIDS in Africa is the result of poor health care practices, the US Congress earmarked as much as $75 million of its Global AIDS Initiative toward "safe and appropriate" injections and the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a multinational investigation into his claims. The WHO study was led by George Schmid and the findings were published in The Lancet. The results flat out refuted Gisselquist, finding “no compelling evidence that unsafe injections are a predominant mode of HIV-1 transmissions in sub-Saharan Africa”. The Human Sciences Research Council in South Africa also spent their limited resources to debunk Gisslequist’s notions.

David Gisselquist refuses to accept that sexual transmission is the source of Africa’s AIDS crisis. He maintains that he is right while the mountain of scientific evidence is wrong. He does not, however, identify himself as an AIDS denialist or AIDS rethinker. In fact, he was once listed by The Rethinking AIDS Society as an AIDS ‘dissident’ and asked to have his name removed from the list. Ironically, David Gisselquist recently published a paper in the International Journal of STD and AIDS, of course, saying that those who do not listen to him are denialists.

More time and money has been wasted chasing after denialist claims. In a particularly repugnant example, children were removed from HIV clinical trials after baseless statements by denialists that children were being harmed. As described in a recently completed investigative report, “In January 2004, an independent journalist named Liam Scheff published an article on the web site www.altheal.org. In his article, Scheff alleged that ‘black, Hispanic, and poor’ children in the care of Children’s Services had been enrolled without their knowledge and against the wishes of their parents or guardians in HIV/AIDS clinical trials that were ‘neither safe nor necessary.’ According to Liam Scheff, these trials involved antiretroviral drugs that were ‘known to cause disability and death.’ Liam Scheff reported that the trials took place at the Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC) in New York City’s Washington Heights neighborhood.” Liam Scheff’s Internet postings included a story he wrote for Hustler magazine titled Guinea Pig Kids. Ultimately, the BBC picked up the story and produced a documentary of the same title, only to later publicly retract and apologize.

A full-scale investigation into Scheff’s claims by the Vera Institute for Justice entitled “The Experiences of New York City Foster Children in HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials” was released in a 500 page report on January 28, 2009 and found that children were not harmed and that the allegations of minority children being selected as guinea pigs were untrue. Nevertheless, there has been a chilling effect on conducting HIV treatment trials with orphans and children in care of the state.

The same wasteful situations arise in response to medical hysteria. Parents refuse to vaccinate their children and women have had perfectly safe prosthetic devises dangerously removed from their bodies because of the fears caused by well-publicized unsubstantiated claims. Like medical hysterics, denialists are good at sounding alarms and drawing attention to their outlandish claims. The waste of using limited resources to put baseless ideas to rest is just another example of the social costs of AIDS denialism.

CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT!
An entry by “Brangelina” (a junior blogger) at AIDS Myth Exposed posted some interesting suspicions:

“Seth Kalichman is at it again, denialism, that is. He writes an entire blog about 'denialism' and ends by saying that at the Incarnation orphanage "children were not harmed and that the allegations of minority children being selected as guinea pigs were untrue. Nevertheless, there has been a chilling effect on conducting HIV treatment trials with orphans and children in care of the state." Meanwhile the Vera Institute says that 96% of children were minorities, and that 80 children died and that more died after trials! Please help Seth Kalichman over his denialism by asking him how many children have to die on Aids drugs before he counts even ONE!!!!???Liam Scheff posted his own letter from the Vera Institute which says that no medical records were reviewed. Who is Seth Kalichman paid by? What does he care about? He can't even admit that children D-I-E-D DURING THE DRUG TRIALS!!!The Vera institute was such a cover up, imagine how the 'Truthers' would shred it to pieces if the dissidents put out such a hollow report, with no records and censored interviews with patients???!!! Where's the accountability???”

The question regarding the children who died at the Incarnation orphanage is asked and answered in the Comments below.
I understand why a conspiracy involving the pharmaceutical industry and the NIH, as well as a cover-up by the Vera Institute, explains why 25 children with AIDS died. When you are in AIDS denial, a conspiracy is the obvious explanation.

Why Christine Maggiore’s Cause of Death Does Not Matter

It really does not matter what caused Christine Maggiore’s death. Internet sites are clogged with comments debating whether she died of AIDS. This type of back and forth is just another pseudo-debate that we see time and again in AIDS denialism. Christine Maggiore’s death does not have to have been caused by AIDS (although it was) to prove the denialists wrong. The denialists are wrong because their world view is entrenched in conspiracy thinking, intense suspicion, and detachment from objective reality.

In her life, Christine Maggiore was a visible and vocal advocate for a propaganda campaign that undermines the prevention and treatment of HIV infection – among the greatest threats to global public health. In life she was a voice for pseudoscience. Christine Maggiore spread conspiracy theories and ‘deconstructed AIDS’ to disinform and confuse people who are in desperate need of accurate information.


In her death, she has stirred the controversy she helped create. Those who looked to her for inspiration as the person who tested HIV positive and was alive and well without treatment must now confront what it means that she has died an uncommon death from an infectious disease. For some in denial, the death of Christine Maggiore will mean a snap back to reality. But for many others it will not.

It does not matter if Christine Maggiore died of AIDS (although she did). Regardless of why she died, her denialism has caused much harm. Countless people living with HIV/AIDS have been misled only to find themselves grasping for answers as their health diminishes. One week before she died, Christine Maggiore was reported (and retracted) to have communicated the following email about her health:

Regarding my health, I finally figured out what’s going on…but it got really scary. Here’s the scoop I just sent a friend:I have been through the absolute worst health nightmare ever. The cleanse, while definitely bringing about some profound benefits, left me feeling weak and dehydrated. I lost my appetite almost completely about 10 days ago and for some weird reason could only tolerate hot tea and hot chicken broth. I had been in touch with the cleanse doc who said all was typical, uncomfortable but typical. Not one to quit, I kept going. Then I started to have trouble breathing, I was feeling winded after the most simple task like making the bed. This last Sunday, I stopped being able to sleep at all. So finally, genius that I am, I made an appointment to see my MD who is really smart and very well versed in natural health care and not at all into the HIV paradigm.I could only get in to see her yesterday. She said I was totally dehydrated and having a reaction to the herbs in the cleanse which she thought were suspicious. I asked her to check my lungs and she said they sounded clear. I told her I thought I should have a chest Xray anyway, just to be sure, but she was skeptical because I hadn’t had a cold, flu, cough or fever. But I insisted so she wrote me up to go to a radiology place that would give an immediate reading. By then I felt so ill I had to ask my neighbor to drive me and thank god he was there with me because I never would have made it to the radiologist without his help. As it turned out, the Xray showed a very serious case of bi-lateral bronchial pneumonia. The doctor immediately gave me IV rehydration, IV natural cortisone, and IV antibiotic. She said if I did not improve by the next day, I would have to go to the hospital which I argued would give me worse treatment, lousy food and maybe a MRS infection as a parting gift. I went back again today, had more IV treatments and she said if I can make it through the weekend without having to go to the hospital, she will be very happy. She also said I’m pretty tough to have had such severe pneumonia and keep going. I have three natural cortisone treatments I am to take everyday, and today I started with another antibiotic called Z pack which is different from the one used in the IV. It’s a little scary because she asked me if I am allergic to the antibiotics she’s giving me but I’ve never taken them, so I don’t know. She stayed next to me during the IV antibiotic to make sure I was not going into reaction which sort of made me feel like I might be having a reaction! But I didn’t and I slept for the first time since Sunday last night.My appetite is getting back to normal and I am on total bed rest for two weeks. I can’t imagine doing otherwise.

The legacy of AIDS denialism is seen in the same desperation of other people who were led by denialism to feel good only to be shattered as they fell ill. Here are a few such stories accessed at the AIDS Myth Exposed Message Board.

Hi there I am new to this site and have been a member of HEAL Toronto and am a great supporter of Aliveandwell.org and Christine Maggiores work. I consider myself a dissident and am trying to find out the answers to this mystery called HIV/Aids. I tested positive in 1998 and on no treatment and in good health until Apr of this year when I came down with mild case of KS. At this time I unfortunately had to forgo treatment and started treatment at that time and its been ongoing ever since. I must admit that the short treatment did alleviate the symtoms I had within a short period of time. My concern now (knowing what I know about alternative discussions on whether or not hiv is the cause of aids) is that im wondering how long I should stay on the meds. My gut feeling is to stop now but my inner fear dictates otherwise.

Hi, my partner has been diagnosed with having cryptococcal meningitis. He has been doing a slow cleanse for 3 years now, since going cold turkey on all the toxic "hiv/aids" drugs. He's been incredibly healthy but has had some issues that we've been able to work out. But for the past month he had a recurring and progressively worsening headache, migraine type, that traveled into his back. He had to fall back on painkillers to relieve the pain as it was so bad- he is adamantly against taking any drug for anything so this was a tough decision. He was constantly in an epsom salt warm bath or in bed with heating pads and/or ice packs. He was only eating raw fruits and juices and herbal teas. After 3 visits to the ER, again because the pain was so bad, and he was accused of being a painkiller addict, we made the 4th visit the other night. This time they kept him and checked him into a room. They tested for meningitis. I was told yesterday that it was viral meningitis, but they today they said it was cryptococcal

Hi! I need some serious advise in dealing with a serious and very persistent fungal infection that has made things very difficult for me. Before you ask me to seek a naturopath/alternative healer, let me tell you that I have done that three times and have taken herbal remedies worth over thousands of dollars and too many to count in number.Nothing has been able to get rid of my systemic infection. I have followed the diet for over one and a half year, tried IV hyrdogen peroxide, taken OTC remedies, homeopathic remedies (all under different practitioners) but nothing can get rid of this infection. It has affected every part of my health and body including my mental state

I have been a dissident for seven years. I am now being pressured to take an antiretroviral called Atripla starting next week. If anyone might have some advice for me on this topic I welcome it. As a dissident, I stopped having my surrogate markers checked several years ago and because I seemed to be enjoying good health I did not feel it was necessary. Last month I went to the doctor complaining of headaches sinus problems and general malaise which had been plaguing me since November of last year. Because I was supposed to leave on a trip the next week I wanted to get myself well. I was given a CAT scan and put in the hospital after the CAT scan revealed lesions on my brain attributable to Toxoplasmosis. I was in the hospital a week and I am only now returning to work after an absence of three weeks. My family came to see me in the hospital and I was able to avoid the AIDS issue somehow. Strangely enough I was HIV negative two years ago on a test. Anyway, my surrogate markers were 25 for CD4 count and 185,000 for viral load. According to my partner and my doctors, if I had been monitoring my numbers all of the could have been avoided. I do feel somewhat sheepish about what happened to me. I am now left with wondering what to do. I truly never thought that I would end up with an AIDS diagnosis in the hospital.

UPDATE JANUARY 31, 2009

More than a month after Christine Maggiore's death, there is no word on whether an autopsy was performed and what her cause of death was. Celia Farber's initial posting of Christine Maggiore in her own words has been removed.

Complete silence speaks volumes.

Denialism and the Death of Christine Maggiore

It was unavoidable. Since the reporting of Christine Maggiore’s death from pneumonia, the expected barrage of explanations has flooded the internet.

For my own part, I have stated that when a person who tested HIV positive dies of pneumonia they have, by medical definition, died from complications of AIDS.

There is no controversy that Christine Maggiore tested HIV positive. Her HIV positive status was the very basis for her refusing AZT to prevent HIV transmission to her baby. David Crowe (or at least the person who poses as David Crowe) has said:“Christine was a beacon of hope for many people whose lives, like her own, had been turned upside-down by an HIV-positive diagnosis.” Christine Maggiore was HIV positive.

In the US, deaths from pneumonia under age 65 are exceedingly rare except in AIDS patients. Among people 65 and older, influenza and pneumonia combined account for less than 3% of all deaths. Across all age groups, including infants and the elderly, pneumonia ranks 67th among all causes of death in the US. In 2004, 58,564 people in the US died of pneumonia, of which 3,649 (6%) were under the age of 55. Given the number of deaths from HIV/AIDS, we can extrapolate to conclude that young people who die of pneumonia often have AIDS.

Given the psychology of denialism it is, of course, impossible for a denier to accept the realities of Christine Maggiore’s life and death. So how then do AIDS denialists explain the death of Christine Maggiore? Below is a sampling.

Brian Carter: As unfortunate as it may be people do die, plain and simple and in the case of Christine, merely testing positive on an antibody test 16 years ago and not being able to overcome a bout of double pneumonia proves nothing.

Liam Sheff: She was wane, tired, exhausted, worn out, worked too much, too often, alone, didn’t eat enough, was still grieving for her daughter, and never stopped to grieve, I think.

Celia Farber: She had apparently been on a radical cleansing and detox regimen that had sickened her and left her very weak, dehydrated, and unable to breathe. She was shortly thereafter diagnosed with pneumonia and placed on IV antibiotics and rehydration. But she didn’t make it.

She didn't have any pneumonia. It was only a problem of lack of water in her lungs. Then, she took antibiotics to treat her so called pneumonia. It could have evolved quite well, since it increases the cortisol level.

She made a de-toxe cleanse. During that cleanse, it seems that she took herbs in order to clean her colon. Maybe she also did a fast. This is those herbs which caused the problem. Those herbs first increase the cortisol level. But, when you stop to take them cold turkey, the cortisol level decrease to a level lower than the normal one.

So, suddenly, her cortisol level was too low. And all symptoms from a low cortisol level appeared. In fact, it is exactly the same thing which happens when you stop suddenly to take Haart, or to take cortisone. All those three meds act the same way, by manipulating the cortisol level.

Christine passed from the wear and tear of ever more stress. From one too many straws that breaks the camels back. Her life has been very intense and stress filled for the last few years and was getting even more so. From the grief of losing her daughter, to being heralded in the press as a lunatic denialist child murderer with nothing to look forward to but going up against the "monsters who crucified her" in court this week.

There are unusual circumstances in Christine's death. I say that because Christine was not even hospitalized at the time of her sudden death.

She has died because she certainly took antibiotics.

This is what killed her.But she died primarily because she believed in pneumonia.

This is why she took antibiotics to treat it. This is also why we need to reappraise toxoplasmosis, pneumonia, and tuberculosis (the three most diagnosed illnesses to hiv+ people). Until we do that, there will be other deaths of dissidents.

Christine Maggiore, 1956-2008

Christine Maggiore, vocal skeptic of AIDS research, dies at 52. By Anna Gorman and Alexandra Zavis, The LA Times, 8:48 PM PST, Dec 29, 2008

Until the end, Christine Maggiore remained defiant.On national television and in a blistering book, she denounced research showing that HIV causes AIDS. She refused to take medications to treat her own virus. She gave birth to two children and breast fed them, denying any risk to their health. And when her 3-year-old child, Eliza Jane, died of what the coroner determined to be AIDS-related pneumonia, she protested the findings and sued the county.

On Saturday, Maggiore died at her Van Nuys home, leaving a husband, a son and many unanswered questions. She was 52.According to officials at the Los Angeles County coroner's office, she had been treated for pneumonia in the last six months. Because she had recently been under a doctor's care, no autopsy will be performed unless requested by the family, they said.


Her husband, Robin Scovill, could not be reached for comment. Jay Gordon, a pediatrician whom the family consulted when Eliza Jane was sick, said Monday that Maggiore's death was an "unmitigated tragedy."

"In the event that she died of AIDS-related complications, there are medications to prevent this," said Gordon, who disagrees with Maggiore's views and believes HIV causes AIDS. "There are medications that enable people who are HIV-positive to lead healthy, normal, long lives."Diagnosed with HIV in 1992, Maggiore plunged into AIDS volunteer work -- at AIDS Project Los Angeles, L.A. Shanti and Women at Risk. Her background commanded attention.

A well-spoken, middle-class woman, she was soon being asked to speak about the risks of HIV at local schools and health fairs. "At the time," Maggiore told The Times in 2005, "I felt like I was doing a good thing."All that changed in 1994, she said, when she spoke to UC Berkeley biology professor Peter Duesberg, whose well-publicized views on AIDS -- including assertions that its symptoms can be caused by recreational drug use and malnutrition -- place him well outside the scientific mainstream.Intrigued, Maggiore began scouring the literature about the underlying science of HIV. She came to believe that flu shots, pregnancy and common viral infections could lead to a positive test result. She later detailed those claims in her book, "What if Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong?"

Maggiore started Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, a nonprofit that challenges "common assumptions" about AIDS. She also had a regular podcast about the topic.Her supporters expressed shock Monday over her death but were highly skeptical that it was caused by AIDS. And they said it would not stop them from questioning mainstream thinking."Why did she remain basically healthy from 1992 until just before her death?" asked David Crowe, who served with Maggiore for a number of years on the board of the nonprofit Rethinking AIDS. "I think it's certain that people who promote the establishment view of AIDS will declare that she died of AIDS and will attempt to use this to bring people back in line.


Christine Maggiore and the price of skepticism: Questioning theories is usually a healthy pursuit, but in some cases -- such as Christine Maggiore's HIV theories -- the risks outweigh criticisms. LA Times Editorial, January 3, 2009

Christine Maggiore, who was diagnosed with HIV in 1992, waged a long, bitter campaign denouncing the prevailing scientific wisdom on the causes and treatment of AIDS. She fiercely contested the overwhelming consensus that the HIV virus causes AIDS, and that preventive approaches and antiretrovirals can help thwart the disease's spread and prolong the lives of those who suffer from it. Her campaign ended this week with her death at age 52. Her challenge, however, continues, as Maggiore's argument -- that scientific consensus, no matter how established, remains subject to objection -- runs through debates with profound public policy implications. Does smoking cause cancer? Do human activities contribute to climate change?It is admittedly difficult to spot the moment when a scientific theory becomes an accepted fact. It took hundreds of years for the Catholic Church to acknowledge the work of Galileo, and it still flinches at Darwin. Meanwhile, the rest of the sentient universe long ago accepted that the Earth orbits the sun, and all but the most determined creationists see the undeniable evidence of evolution at work. Still, science is a discipline of questions, and rarely is a fact established so firmly that it will silence all critics. At the Creation Museum near Cincinnati, the exhibit guides visitors "to the dawn of time" -- just 6,000 years ago. That makes for some startling conclusions, not the least of which is that dinosaurs and humans were created by God on the sixth day and lived side by side. Call it the Flinstones theory.

Of course, new questions inevitably emerge from new inquiry and new data. How, then, to judge when a theory becomes fact, when it slips beyond legitimate objection? The test lies in balance: A preponderance of evidence accumulates on one side or the other. Those who contest that evidence must demonstrate the plausibility of alternatives and produce evidence to support them. If the alternatives are implausible, they melt away. Eventually, there is nothing left to uphold the view that the sun is circling the Earth or that natural selection is a secular myth.In some instances, these debates are interesting but not terribly consequential. But sometimes they are of staggering significance. When the theory in question is about the cause of climate change or AIDS, misplaced skepticism, whether cynical or well-intentioned, can lead to grave results.

For years, the South African government joined with Maggiore in denying that HIV is responsible for AIDS and resisting antiretroviral treatment. According to a new analysis by a group of Harvard public health researchers, 330,000 people died as a consequence of the government's denial and 35,000 babies were born with the disease.

Determined to reject scientific wisdom, Maggiore breast-fed her daughter. Eliza Jane died in 2005, at the age of 3. The L.A. County coroner concluded that the cause of death was AIDS-related pneumonia. Maggiore refused to believe it.

The ABC’s of HIV Prevention Denialism

AbstiThe past decade has seen a relentless demand for placing sexual abstinence-only programs at the forefront of HIV prevention. Most notably is the official US HIV prevention policy for the ABC approach – Abstinence until marriage; advising those who are sexually active to Be faithful to one partner; and finally, urging Condom use, especially for those who have more than one sexual partner.

Despite repeated reviews of carefully controlled behavioral intervention trials, HIV prevention science has been ignored for the sake of conservative political agendas. For example, Underhill and colleagues identified 13 carefully controlled intervention trials that enrolled nearly16,000 US youths. "Compared with various controls, no programme affected incidence of unprotected vaginal sex, number of partners, condom use, or sexual initiation. One trial observed adverse effects at short term follow-up (sexually transmitted infections, frequency of sex) and long term follow-up (sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy) compared with usual care, but findings were offset by trials with non-significant results. Another trial observed a protective effect on incidence of vaginal sex compared with usual care, but this was limited to short term follow-up and countered by trials with non-significant findings.”

The authors concluded that “Programmes that exclusively encourage abstinence from sex do not seem to affect the risk of HIV infection in high income countries, as measured by self reported biological and behavioural outcomes.” [Underhill et al. BMJ].

In that respect, those who continue to insist on abstinence-only HIV prevention programs venture into the dark world of denialism.

Just like other variants of denialism (9/11, Holocaust, etc.), those who call for sexual abstinence-only prevention programs are wishfully thinking that adolescents won’t have sex if simply told not to. It is the same ‘Just Say No’ mentality that failed to prevent drug abuse.

Selectively attending to the science one wants to see is the hallmark of denialism. The proponents of abstinence-only programs, or more generally the ABC approach to prevention, have often pointed to success in Uganda where an HIV/AIDS catastrophe was averted in the 1990’s. The problem is that Uganda’s prevention success predated their adoption of the ABC slogan. In fact, in the years following the official use of the ABC slogan by President Museveni, Uganda’s AIDS problem has gotten worse.

For more information on the reality of Uganda’s HIV prevention success and the reasons why Uganda is now facing a growing HIV epidemic, you can read a series of excellent papers from people who were in Uganda in the 1990s. Four articles published in the peer-reviewed research journal AIDS and Behavior provide an excellent discussion on HIV/AIDS prevention in Uganda. The first article is an overview by Mike Merson now at Duke University. Merson was the Director of the WHO Global AIDS Program during the years that Uganda averted an HIV disaster. The impact of sexual behavior changes and the governmental response in Uganda’s HIV epidemic are detailed in an article by Ted Green and his colleagues at Harvard. Ron Gray, who has done extensive research in Uganda for decades comments on Green’s article. Finally, Gary Slutkin and his colleagues who were on the ground in Uganda during those critical years provide their perspective. All four articles can be accessed and downloaded free.

UPDATE: A study being published in the journal Pediatrics “Virginity Pledges Do Not Work, Yet Another Study Confirms” reports that teens who make a pledge to abstain from sex are no more likely to do so than other teens.

UPDATE: On January 23, 2009 President Obama reversed provisions of the Mexico City Policy allowing for funding of safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries.

The President said "I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund. By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries."

This is the first in what we hope will be a series of changes that refute Bush denialist policies.