Accountability for Reckless Abuse of Academic Credentials by AIDS Deniers

Unconventional thinkers or recklessly dangerous minds?

By Jon Cartwright

6 May 2010

Aids denialism is estimated to have killed many thousands. Jon Cartwright asks if scientists should be held accountable, while overleaf Bruce Charlton defends his decision to publish the work of an Aids sceptic, which sparked a row that has led to his being sacked and his journal abandoning its raison d'etre: presenting controversial ideas for scientific debate

In late 1996, Robert C, a social worker living in New York, was diagnosed as HIV-positive. At first he followed his doctor's advice and collected his prescription antiretrovirals, which stall the disease's progression. But he never took the drugs. Instead, encouraged by a series of articles in the US magazine Spin, he did nothing.

For a few years, everything was fine. Then, in February 2003, Robert spotted what looked like a blood blister on the back of his calf. That, he would later discover, was Kaposi's sarcoma, a cancer known to be triggered by Aids. Soon thereafter, he noticed that his tongue was growing patches of white fur. That would turn out to be hairy leukoplakia, an infection also strongly linked with Aids. By May that year, he had contracted Aids-related pneumonia, forcing him to revisit a surgery. But the doctor unknowingly prescribed treatment for common pneumonia: Robert refused to admit that he had HIV.

Only in January 2004, having attempted suicide to escape a nervous breakdown, did Robert finally make it into hospital and receive the drugs that would save him from death. "I still have these moments when I have to remind myself that I'm not in that world any longer," he says now, clear of Aids for almost six years.

Robert is one of many who, in the wake of a traumatic diagnosis, have succumbed to the belief that HIV does not cause Aids. It is an idea circulated by so-called Aids denialists, who claim - contrary to the overwhelming scientific evidence - that HIV is harmless, or doesn't exist, and that the true causes of Aids are either certain "lifestyles" or antiretrovirals (ARVs) themselves. A recent survey of gay and bisexual men in four US cities found that 45 per cent think that HIV does not cause Aids, and more than 50 per cent believe that HIV drugs do more harm than good. In South Africa, policies stemming from Aids denialism led to an estimated 340,000 deaths. The shocking toll is prompting many scientists and activists to ask: who should be held accountable?

The origin of Aids denialism lies with one man. Peter Duesberg has spent the whole of his academic career at the University of California, Berkeley. In the 1970s he performed groundbreaking work that helped show how mutated genes cause cancer, an insight that earned him a well-deserved international reputation. Yet in the early 1980s, something changed. Duesberg attempted to refute his own theories, claiming that it was not mutated genes but rather environmental toxins that are cancer's true cause. He dismissed the studies of other researchers who had furthered his original work. Then, in 1987, he published a paper that extended his new train of thought to Aids.

By that time, scientists were already forming a clear idea of how HIV causes Aids. HIV enters into crucial cells in the immune system, integrates with the DNA and replicates itself. The process destroys the cells, gradually weakening the immune system to a point classified as Aids, when the body is left undefended against all manner of potentially fatal infections. In his paper, however, Duesberg claimed, as he did for cancer, that Aids is caused by environmental toxins, while HIV is a mere "passenger" virus.

Initially many scientists were open to Duesberg's ideas. But as evidence linking HIV to Aids mounted - crucially the observation that ARVs brought Aids sufferers who were on the brink of death back to life - the vast majority concluded that the debate was over. Nonetheless, Duesberg persisted with his arguments, and in doing so attracted a cabal of supporters, from Australia's Perth Group of denialists to those behind the website virusmyth.com. "On a daily basis people are listening to them because they are saying what people want to hear - that HIV doesn't cause Aids," says Seth Kalichman, a clinical psychologist at the University of Connecticut and editor of the journal Aids and Behavior.

In 1999, denialism secured its highest-profile advocate: Thabo Mbeki, who was then president of South Africa. Having studied denialist literature, Mbeki decided that the consensus on Aids sounded too much like a "biblical absolute truth" that couldn't be questioned. The following year he set up a panel of advisers, nearly half of whom were Aids denialists, including Duesberg. The resultant health policies cut funding for clinics distributing ARVs, withheld donor medication and blocked international aid grants. Meanwhile, Mbeki's health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, promoted the use of alternative Aids remedies, such as beetroot and garlic.

All this might not have been so devastating had South Africa not been in the throes of an Aids epidemic. Among pregnant women attending clinics, positive tests for HIV rose from almost nothing in 1990 to about a quarter in 2000. South Africa's population needed help, but little came. In 2007, Nicoli Nattrass, an economist and director of the Aids and Society Research Unit at the University of Cape Town, estimated that, between 1999 and 2007, Mbeki's Aids denialist policies led to more than 340,000 premature deaths. Later, scientists Max Essex, Pride Chigwedere and other colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health arrived at a similar figure.

"I don't think it's hyperbole to say the (Mbeki regime's) Aids policies do not fall short of a crime against humanity," says Kalichman. "The science behind these medications was irrefutable, and yet they chose to buy into pseudoscience and withhold life-prolonging, if not life-saving, medications from the population. I just don't think there's any question that it should be looked into and investigated."

Kalichman isn't the only one demanding accountability. Over the past few years, there have been escalating calls for an inquiry that will give justice to bereaved families and help prevent a similar catastrophe recurring. Chigwedere and Essex, for example, suggest that the case could be taken on by the International Criminal Court. Salim Abdool Karim, an Aids epidemiologist at Columbia University and a former member of Mbeki's Aids advisory panel, thinks South Africa needs a "truth commission" - similar to the one that investigated perpetrators of apartheid. Others, such as Malegapuru Makgoba, who was head of South Africa's Medical Research Council during Mbeki's rule, have called the former leader's policies tantamount to genocide.

"There needs to be some sort of accounting," says Nathan Geffen, director of communications at the Treatment Action Campaign, which fights for the rights of HIV and Aids sufferers. "I'm not talking of some sort of mass trial and sending them all off to jail. I'm just talking about a public acknowledgement that this was wrong, and that these are the people who are responsible for it being wrong."

Most scientists and activists admit that the chances of a trial are low. And even if one were possible, there is concern that such public exposure of Aids denialists would give more publicity to their cause and, ultimately, lead to more deaths. This is the view taken by Nattrass, who also thinks Mbeki would fall back on the time-tested defence that he did what he believed was right.

In fairness, there was a reason to have faint doubts about HIV treatment in the early days of Mbeki's rule. In 2000, after Mbeki had formed his advisory panel and just days before an international Aids conference in Durban, more than 5,000 scientists and physicians signed the "Durban Declaration", affirming that HIV is "unequivocally" the cause of Aids. Although the declaration emphasised the general efficacy of ARVs, some individual cases had raised questions about their reliability on mass rollout. In 2002, for example, Sarah Hlalele, a South African HIV patient and activist from a settlement background, died from "lactic acidosis", a side-effect of her drugs combination. Today doctors know enough about mixing ARVs not to make the same mistake, but at the time her death terrified the medical community. Could it have somehow resulted from her poor background?

"We just didn't know," says Edwin Cameron, a justice of the South African Constitutional Court, who is openly HIV positive. Cameron believes that Mbeki played on cases such as Hlalele's to enforce his own "intellectual hubris"; indeed, he once compared the former president's Aids denialism to Holocaust denialism. Yet he thinks that any trial would be futile because of the uncertainties over ARVs that existed during Mbeki's tenure and the fact that others in Mbeki's government went along with his views (although they have since renounced them). "Mbeki was wrong, but propositions we had established then weren't as incontestably established as they are now ... So I think these calls (for genocide charges or criminal trials) are misguided, and I think they're a sideshow, and I don't support them."

Regardless of the culpability of politicians, the question remains whether scientists themselves should be allowed to promote views that go wildly against the mainstream consensus. The history of science is littered with offbeat ideas that were ridiculed by the scientific communities of the time. Most of these ideas missed the textbooks and went straight into the waste-paper basket, but a few - continental drift, the germ basis of disease or the Earth's orbit around the Sun, for instance - ultimately proved to be worth more than the paper they were written on. In science, many would argue, freedom of expression is too important to throw away.

Such an issue is engulfing the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses. Last year the journal, which is not peer reviewed, published a paper by Duesberg and others claiming that the South African Aids death-toll estimates were inflated, while reiterating the argument that there is "no proof that HIV causes Aids". That prompted several Aids scientists to complain to Elsevier, which responded by retracting the paper and asking the journal's editor, Bruce Charlton, to implement a system of peer review. Having refused to change the editorial policy, Charlton faces the sack (see right).

There are people who would like the journal to keep its current format and continue accepting controversial papers, but for Aids scientists, Duesberg's paper was a step too far. Although it was deleted from both the journal's website and the Medline database, its existence elsewhere on the internet drove Chigwedere and Essex to publish a peer-reviewed rebuttal earlier this year in AIDS and Behavior, lest any readers be "hoodwinked" into thinking there was genuine debate about the causes of Aids.

Duesberg believes he is being "censored", although he has found other outlets. In 1991, he helped form "The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/Aids Hypothesis" - now called Rethinking Aids, or simply The Group - to publicise denialist information. Backed by his Berkeley credentials, he regularly promotes his views in media articles and films. Meanwhile, his closest collaborator, David Rasnick, tells "anyone who asks" that "HIV drugs do more harm than good".

Robert C was one of those who asked. In 1997, shortly after he was diagnosed as HIV-positive, he wrote to Duesberg. In reply, he received from Rasnick a letter on Berkeley-letterhead paper reassuring him that "the extraordinarily harmless virus HIV does not cause Aids" and that "the vast majority of HIV-positive people ... are perfectly healthy". It went on to say that HIV drugs "are probably doing nothing to improve health directly". Eight years later, after Robert had become seriously ill without taking medication, he wrote to Duesberg again. This time he received no response. Neither Rasnick nor Duesberg responded to questions from Times Higher Education about the potential consequences of promoting views that contradict the medical consensus.

"Is academic freedom such a precious concept that scientists can hide behind it while betraying the public so blatantly?" asked John Moore, an Aids scientist at Cornell University, on a South African health news website last year. Moore suggested that universities could put in place a "post-tenure review" system to ensure that their researchers act within accepted bounds of scientific practice. "When the facts are so solidly against views that kill people, there must be a price to pay," he added.

Now it seems Duesberg may have to pay that price since it emerged last month that his withdrawn paper has led to an investigation at Berkeley for misconduct. Yet for many in the field, chasing fellow scientists comes second to dealing with the Aids pandemic. Alan Whiteside, director of health economics and HIV/Aids research at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and another former member of Mbeki's advisory panel, says he would like to see denialist scientists, activists and governments held to account. But he also points to neighbouring Swaziland, which is widely reported to have the world's greatest HIV infection rate and a life expectancy of just 45 years. "I'm facing a crisis ... I've got to deal with that," he says. "It's more a luxury to hold people accountable."

Jon Cartwright is a freelance journalist based in Bristol.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Bruce Charlton explains why he published a paper by 'perhaps the world's most hated scientist' and the importance of airing radical ideas

On 11 May, Elsevier, the multinational academic publisher, will sack me from my position as editor of Medical Hypotheses. This affair has attracted international coverage in major journals such as Nature, Science and the British Medical Journal.

How did it come to this? Last year I published two papers on Aids that led to a complaint sent to Elsevier.

This was not unexpected. Medical Hypotheses was established with the express intent of allowing ideas outside the mainstream to be aired so that they could be debated openly. Its policy had not changed since its founding more than three decades ago, and it remained unaltered under my editorship, which began in 2003.

Nevertheless, managers at Elsevier sided with those who made the complaints and againstMedical Hypotheses. Glen P. Campbell, a senior vice-president at Elsevier, started a managerial process that immediately withdrew the two papers - without consulting me and without gaining editorial consent. After deliberating in private, the management at Elsevier informed me of plans to make Medical Hypotheses into an orthodox, peer-reviewed and censored journal. When I declined to implement the new policy, Elsevier gave notice to kick me out before my contract expired and without compensation.

One of the papers, by Marco Ruggiero's group at the University of Florence, (doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.06.002) teased the Italian health ministry that its policies made it seem as if the department did not believe that HIV was the cause of Aids. The other paper, by Peter Duesberg's group at University of California, Berkeley (doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.06.024), argued that HIV was not a sufficient cause of Aids.

The Ruggiero paper seems to have been an innocent bystander that was misunderstood both by those who made a complaint and by Elsevier. The real controversy focused on Duesberg's paper.

Why did I publish a paper by Duesberg - perhaps the world's most hated scientist?

Peter Duesberg is a brilliant and highly knowledgeable scientist with a track record of exceptional achievement that includes election to the US National Academy of Sciences. However, his unyielding opposition to the prevailing theory that HIV is a sufficient cause of Aids has made Duesberg an international hate figure, and his glittering career has been pretty much ruined.

I published Duesberg's paper because to do so was clearly in line with the long-term goals, practice and the explicitly stated scope and aims of Medical Hypotheses. We have published many, many such controversial and dissenting papers over the past 35 years. Duesberg is obviously a competent scientist, he is obviously the victim of an orchestrated campaign of intimidation and exclusion, and I interpret his sacrifice of status to principle as prima facie evidence of his sincerity. If I had rejected this paper for fear of the consequences, I would have been betraying the basic ethos of the journal.

Medical Hypotheses was founded 35 years ago by David Horrobin with the purpose of disseminating ideas, theories and hypotheses relating to biomedicine, and of doing so on the basis of editorial review instead of peer review. Horrobin argued that peer review intrinsically tended to exclude radical and revolutionary ideas, and that alternatives were needed. He chose me as his editorial successor because I shared these views.

Both Horrobin and I agreed that the only correct scientific way to deal with dissent was to publish it so that it could be debated, confirmed or refuted in an open and scientific forum. The alternative - suppressing scientific dissent by preventing publication using behind-the-scenes and anonymous procedures - we would both regard as extremely dangerous because it is wide open to serious abuse and manipulation by powerful interest groups.

Did I know that the Duesberg paper would be controversial?

Yes. I knew that Duesberg was being kept out of the mainstream scientific literature, and that breaching this conspiracy would annoy those who had succeeded in excluding him for so long.

When I published the Duesberg article, I envisaged it meeting one of two possible fates.

In the first scenario, the paper would be shunned or simply ignored - dropped down the memory hole. This is what has usually happened in the past when a famous scientist published ideas that their colleagues regarded as misguided or crazy. Linus Pauling (1901-94) was a Nobel prizewinner and one of the most important chemists in history. Yet his views on the medical benefits of vitamin C were regarded as wrong. He was allowed to publish them, but (rightly or wrongly) they were generally ignored in mainstream science.

In the other scenario, Duesberg's paper would attract robust criticism and (apparent) refutation. This happened with Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), a Fellow of the Royal Society whose work on the "steady state" theory of the Universe made him one of the most important cosmologists of the late 20th century. But his views on the origins of life on Earth and the Archaeopteryx fossil were generally regarded as eccentric. Hoyle's ideas were published, attracted much criticism, and were (probably) refuted.

So I expected that Duesberg's paper either would be ignored or would trigger letters and other papers countering the ideas and evidence presented. Medical Hypotheses would have published these counter-arguments, then provided space for Duesberg to respond to the criticisms and later allowed critics to reply to Duesberg's defence. That is, after all, how real science is supposed to work.

What I did not expect was that editors and scientists would be bypassed altogether, and that the matter would be settled by the senior managers of a multinational publishing corporation in consultation with pressure-group activists. Certainly, that would never have happened 25 years ago, when I began research in science.

The success of Medical Hypotheses

Nor did I not expect that I would be sacked, the journal destroyed and plans made to replace it with an impostor of the same name. I did not expect this because I had been doing a good job andMedical Hypotheses was a successful journal.

Elsevier managers in the UK had frequently commended my work, I got a good salary for my work as editor, and I was twice awarded substantial performance-related pay rises. The journal was expanded in size by 50 per cent under my editorship, and a spin-off journal, Bioscience Hypotheses (edited by William Bains), was launched in 2008 on the same principles of editorial review and a radical agenda.

The success of Medical Hypotheses is evidenced by its impact factor (average citations per paper), which under my editorship rose from about 0.6 to 1.4 - an above-average figure for biomedical journals. Download usage was also exceptionally high with considerably more than 1,000 online readers per day (or about half a million papers downloaded per year). This level of internet usage is equivalent to that of a leading title such as Journal of Theoretical Biology.

But Medical Hypotheses was also famous for publishing some rather "eccentric" papers, which were chosen for their tendency to provoke thought, trigger discussion or amuse in a potentially stimulating way. Papers such as Georg Steinhauser's recent analysis of belly-button fluff have polarised opinion and also helped make Medical Hypotheses a cult favourite among people such as Marc Abrahams, the founder of the IgNobel Prizes. But they have also made it the subject of loathing and ridicule among those who demand that science and the bizarre be kept strictly demarcated (to prevent "misunderstanding").

It is hard to measure exactly the influence of a journal, but some recent papers stand out as having had an impact. A report by Lola Cuddy and Jacalyn Duffin discussed the fascinating implications of an old lady with severe Alzheimer's disease who could still recognise tunes such asOh, What a Beautiful Mornin'. This paper, which was discussed by Oliver Sacks in his bookMusicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain, seems to have helped spark a renewed interest in music in relation to brain disease.

The paper "A tale of two cannabinoids" by E. Russo and G.W. Guy suggested that a combination of marijuana products tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) would be valuable painkillers. This idea has since been widely discussed in the scientific literature.

And in 2005, Eric Altschuler published in Medical Hypotheses a letter outlining his idea that survivors of the 1918 flu epidemic might even now retain immunity to the old virus. A few 1918 flu survivors were found who still had antibodies, and cells from those people were cloned to create an antiserum that protected experimental mice against the flu virus. The work was eventually published in Nature and received wide coverage in the US media.

What is my own position on the cause of Aids?

As an editor of a radical journal, my position was resolutely agnostic - in other words, I was not pursuing an agenda. I would publish papers presenting both sides of the debate. Most of the papers I published on Aids were orthodox ideas relating to HIV as the main cause. However, as well as Duesberg's article, I published some other papers challenging the HIV causal theory and proposing different mechanisms, such as work by Lawrence Broxmeyer arguing that some Aids patients actually have tuberculosis.

As for my personal opinions on the cause of Aids, these are irrelevant to real science because the subject is too far away from my core expertise and I do not work in that area. It is clear that Duesberg understands far more about HIV than I do, and more than at least 99 per cent of his critics do. Therefore, the opinions of most of Duesberg's critics, no matter how vehement, are just as irrelevant to real science as are mine.

But for me to collude with prohibiting Duesberg from publishing, I would have needed to be 100 per cent sure that Duesberg was 100 per cent wrong. Because even if he is mostly wrong, it is possible that someone of his ability may be seeing some kind of problem with the current consensus about Aids that other people of lesser ability (that is, most of us) are missing.

And if Duesberg may be even partially correct, it is extremely dangerous that the proper scientific process has been so ruthlessly distorted and subverted simply to exclude his ideas from the official scientific literature.

Bruce G. Charlton is professor of theoretical medicine, University of Buckingham.

On the Brink of Denialism: Why Peter Duesberg is Wrong and David Crowe is a Liar

Here is a real gem.

Onnie Mary Phuthe, an HIV+ woman from Botswana, wrote to South African AIDS Denialist Anthony Brink to ask about the organization Rethinking AIDS. The exchange is posted at AIDS Myth Exposed.

Brink’s response reminds me of a conversation I had with him while he was in Berlin attending an AIDS Dissident's Conference. I asked Brink about Peter Duesberg and he replied that Duesberg was washed up – old hat. The new ideas in AIDS dissidence were coming from contemporary scientists like Etienne de Harven. That seemed remarkable seeing as Peter Duesberg is 73 years old and de Harven is even older at age 81! Ah, the new ideas of AIDS Denialism.

Yet, I often wondered what Anthony Brink felt deep down about Rethinking AIDS and the people I had come to know as North America’s leading AIDS Deniers. Brink after all is responsible for feeding AIDS Denialism to the suspicious intellectual and former South African President Thabo Mbeki – ultimately bringing 300,000 of his fellow countrymen and 30,000 babies to their unnecessary deaths. Now Anthony Brink gives us some insight through his reply to Onnie. It
humoursly shows the infighting among AIDS Deniers, especially the Perth People and Duesbergians. This is worth a read. But be ready, Anthony Brink is not thrifty with words.



UPDATE: AIDS Myth Exposed has a thread to Defend David Crowe from Anthony The Brink of Disaster. Too funny. "If nothing else, it just makes it plain that Brink, and now Knoll are pushing to create a situation no matter what anyone thinks.I will say this though, I have corresponded with Dr. Bauer and he mentioned that Brink has no support from the Board to become RA President. I assume that goes no matter what happens to David. Brink will not ever be President of RA. Why on earth would he go out of his way to harm a terrific and effective dissident? Why would he brush aside the reasoned and caring pleas of a friend like Michael Geiger?

UPDATE: Is David Crowe a liar? Is he a fraud? Anthony Brink is not alone in making these claims against our favorite wannabe scientist AIDS Denialist. As posted at AIDS Myth Exposed...

"I am curious. Is this the same David Crowe who has been a long time executive in the Green Party of Alberta? If you go to the Facebook Group called Greens in Alberta you will find a great deal of information in some of the discussion groups that show how Crowe has operated in the past, and that Crowe and his friends fled the Green Party AGM and tried to hold a secret meeting in the parking lot (unbeknownst to hundreds inside the hall),. Now it is my understanding that he may be under investigation for extortion, fraud, forgery and submitting false documents."

UPDATE: David Crowe will not take Brink's abuse. What kind of denialist would not deny what an AIDS denier alleges! Not David Crowe. Read how David Crowe claims that it is Anthony Brink that is lying. The Snakes are getting rather vicious.

UPDATE: Anthony Brink (Junior Member at AIDS Myth Exposed) shares a string of emails that offer a glimpse into the snake pit. Thank Snout for this one.

From: Onnie Mary Phuthe
Sent: 22 July 2009 10:13 PM
To: arbrink@iafrica.com
Subject: Rethinking Aids

I came across the Rethinking Aids web.

I contacted Mr. David Crowe [David.Crowe@aras.ab.ca] since I wanted to attend he conference for 2009 Nov 4 but have no money.

I have huge interest in HIV and Aids; I have lived with HIV since 1994. I have seen for myself many things that truly support rethinking aids.

I really wish to be in contact with people who think in line with the rethink aids group since I am already living rethink aids. I really feel deceived by all the info being pushed by big pharma and crooked scientists, most of all I really feel pity for all the people who have believed what they heard with no question.

I am the kind of person who does not believe anything until I can also prove it myself. I don’t have a college education only form 4 but learn more at ke fodile, wena? (still under construction). The end of it will make me more enemies than friends about myself. Nevertheless, one thing I have personally witnessed is that most of the lies have come with 99% of the drug pushing diagnoses that are made on humans. It seems very important to treat people at the expense of their lives, health, and financial stability, and worst of all, a devastated mental state in the name of profit.

I truly thought I was in denial or crazy since I questioned everything and I did not believe all I heard. One thing I believe is that food, herbs, water, sunlight, unrefined sea salt, and others are the missing link between the human being of today and the past generations.

All disease that are identified come with a huge profit margin, and second they also comes with a huge cost for the humans involved. The question is animals are in the wild but manage well without vets. Whereas humans because they know and can buy are never fully treated, but rather are always lead to believe what is not true about their bodies.

Disappointing enough, but how can we trust scientists and their discoveries? I know what genuine research looks like.

It looks like this: all the board members, scientists, founders, directors and all others of Rethinking AIDS > Home ( DNN 4.3.5 ) and all their associates. I wish to learn with more clarity the puzzle that I am also putting together; I am missing some pieces here.

I really need to talk to other people who might think similar thoughts. When I talk to others in my country, I already see a threat of people fearing to tell the truth in favour of the funding they get from the spear-headers of the lies of the century.

I have made an ad at the link below. I do not want funding from the same people who got us in the mess, except those who want to deal with me will pay for themselves for the herbs I personally use. I get them fresh and prepare them raw. I am afraid to verbalize all that I know, because maybe I will be caught, I don’t know, but the thing is, does anyone else know what the truth is? If they know, why are we still being told the same lie over and over again, that is why I am afraid. There is something in it for those who choose to conceal the facts.

The challenge is that when it’s been almost thirty years of lies then it’s a challenge to make a statement to a brainwashed society (the world), plus the businesses would collapse if people knew and accepted the truth as it is.

Onnie Mary Phuthe
Botswana

Anthony Brink's reply

From: Anthony Brink [mailto:arbrink@iafrica.com]
Sent: 23 July 2009 03:33 PM
To: (Onnie)
Subject: RE: Rethinking Aids
Importance: High

Dear Onnie

Thanks for your email.

Very nice hearing from you.

We see things in much the same way.

As a fellow African, a pale African in my case, you need to know a few things about 'Rethinking AIDS', and you might want to share this information with your friends and family in Botswana so that they are not also misled about what this organization is.

'Rethinking AIDS' is basically a support group for Professor Peter Duesberg at the University of California, Berkeley, California in America, to promote and defend his scientific views on AIDS.

To see this you only have to go to 'About RA': About RA

Apart from reading about him there, and even finding a link to his website, you'll also read there an account of how and why 'The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis' was originally formed and its past activities.

Nowhere in the 'About RA' page is there any mention of the generally recognized scientific leaders of the AIDS dissident movement: the Australian physicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues (the Perth Group), who even before the publication of Duesberg's critique of the HIV theory of AIDS in 1987, on the basis that 'retroviruses' are always harmless, were already onto the real, more basic reason why the theory is wrong: 'HIV' has never been proven to exist.

You ask in your email, 'how can we trust scientists and their discoveries? I know what genuine research looks like.'

What you need to do is satisfy yourself about this by reading into the matter yourself.

You mustn't take things on authority. Like one of the Rethinking AIDS board members, a very senior member of the board, who says more or less: 'Duesberg's clever and experienced so I just go with what he says.'

It may interest you to know that to the best of my knowledge nobody who has read Duesberg's and the Perth Group's respective papers, and particularly their debate on whether 'HIV' exists, has come away with the conclusion that Duesberg is right that 'HIV' has been proved to exist, and that the Perth Group is wrong to claim that in truth and in fact 'HIV' has never been proved to exist.

Everyone who has studied the scientific disagreement between them has concluded that Duesberg is wrong.

This includes former South African Presidents Mbeki and Motlanthe (the latter currently Deputy President under President Zuma).

All of us feel rather embarrassed about this.

But it's awkward to say something like: 'My father, you need to take a bath, you really do. Everyone around you is noticing and saying so.'

It's so much easier just to pinch our noses and say nothing.

By the early years of our new century, 'The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis' had disintegrated.

It was dead.

In 2006 a Canadian businessman called David Crowe decided to form a new organization under his control.

He collected around him a handful of AIDS dissidents that he knew wouldn't give him any problems, and he formed a 'board of directors', most of whom are either active Duesberg partisans or 'sleepers' in the sense that they don't actively conduct themselves as directors should and do not express any disagreement with Mr Crowe (when one tries, we'll read below, Mr Crowe fixes him.)

This makes it easy for Mr Crowe to run things pretty much on his own along American lines.

It's a bit like the Treatment Action Campaign here in South Africa, which although it has many formal office bearers, is completely dominated and controlled by Zackie Achmat. Everyone knows this.

Now Mr Crowe needs to keep things running on American lines, because as usual that's where the money is.

Isn't it always so, Onnie? Don't we feel it over here in Africa all the time?!

Rethinking AIDS is funded by the same rich person who funds Duesberg, and do you know this same person even sits on the board of Rethinking AIDS, meaning he has the clout to govern its scientific policy? Can you believe such a thing, Onnie?

When one of the Rethinking AIDS board members tries breaking ranks and privately challenges Mr Crowe recently in a small closed internet forum about the things he says and does, whether in his opinion they're right or wrong, true or false, do you know that Mr Crowe sends him a demand by email that he should shut his mouth and in future submit any communications to that forum for him for prior censorship, just to make sure that the disobedient board member doesn't challenge Mr Crowe ever again? Can you believe your ears, Onnie?!

All of this makes it possible for Mr Crowe to run his show the way he wants it unaccountably to the international AIDS dissident community, and to pretend to the outside world that the little organization he formed in 2006 speaks for us all.

Obviously Mr Crowe made his move to form Rethinking AIDS in 2006 behind the scenes without telling the rest of us.

He did not contact every dissident on the list of those who'd signed their support for our basic cause that the HIV-AIDS hypothesis should be re-examined (see About RA page) and announce, 'I reckon it's a good idea to form a new AIDS dissident organization, what do you think? Please nominate yourself if you like and/or some other dissidents for election to a provisional representative body to discuss purpose and direction, scientific policy and operating strategy.'

That's not the way Mr Crowe works!

Behind the scenes is the way he works!

He wanted to make sure that Rethinking AIDS doesn't do any rethinking about anything important, anything really important such as whether 'HIV', which is at the core of the 'HIV-AIDS' construct, even exists.

No, we can't have that, Onnie!

We must stay off that matter!

This is why Mr Crowe made a point of snubbing the Perth Group and rejecting their request for representation on the board when they got to hear what he was up to behind the scenes.

Appropriating the name of the Group's former bulletin, Mr Crowe called his new organization Rethinking AIDS.

From this name and to read 'About RA' on his website, you get the impression that Rethinking AIDS is much the same scientific initiative as the Group.

People who don't know the real history will be deceived by this, but that's the whole idea!

In fact Rethinking AIDS is in no sense a representative organization, and it doesn't speak for the vast majority of AIDS dissidents who reject Duesberg's claim it promotes that 'HIV' has been shown to exist as childish scientific nonsense.

These structural, organizational and legitimacy issues aside, the main problem with Mr Crowe's Rethinking AIDS organization is that it promotes the lie that 'HIV' exists, just as the drug-pushing AIDS doctors, activists, journalists and academics say, only Rethinking AIDS says it's harmless.

This is like telling a child terrified by a noise outside his or her bedroom at night:

'Don't worry, my child, it's only a tokoloshe, it's definitely a tokoloshe. Never mind what everyone believes and tells you, the tokoloshe lurking outside your window won't come in and harm you. Just go back to sleep.'

You say this to the child knowing it's a lie, but you tell the lie to the child anyway because you think it's best to tell lies, maybe because telling lies comes naturally to you in your daily life and in your business dealings and you have a habit of telling lies and responding to what people say with emotive and disingenuous half-truths, and so you're comfortable with lies and half-truths, and/or because you think the child can't cope with the simple truth that tokoloshes exist only in the human imagination.

So it's better to tell the child a lie. The lie that tokoloshes really do exist. Even though it's quite easy to show they haven’t ever been proven to exist by the generally accepted procedure for proving things like this. And if anyone else comes into the room who has heard the child's cries, and says, 'There's no need to worry, my child, there's no tokoloshe outside, there are no tokoloshes', you say: 'Get out! Be quiet! You mustn't say this. It's too complicated for children to be told things like this. It will only confuse them.'

That's the approach to the problem of 'HIV-AIDS' taken by Mr Crowe's Rethinking AIDS organization.

This is how Mr Crowe thinks the myth of HIV-AIDS will be resolved.

He thinks the myth of HIV-AIDS will be resolved with lies.

But when you raise this matter with him, he says, 'But I have been questioning the existence of tokoloshes for many years.'

He doesn't say, 'I agree there are no tokoloshes in the real world.'

He says, 'I have been questioning the existence of tokoloshes for many years.'

Of course this is the kind of thing successful scheming politicians say, because it's evasive, self-serving, convenient and basically dishonest.

I mean successful in getting to be where they want to be for themselves.

I don't mean successful in serving the constituency they claim to represent.

Mr Crowe never says anything as directly truthful as 'There are no tokoloshes in the real world', because that would make it difficult for him as the self-appointed king of the tiny little country he's formed that's cut off from the rest of the world, which no one in the rest of the world recognizes, like Transkei and Bophuthatswana in apartheid South Africa, advised by a witchdoctor who says tokoloshes are very, very real, but are harmless.

What he worries about most is being king of his little country.

Like Ian Smith and his Rhodesian Front, claiming in 1965 to be the Prime Minister of all of Zimbabwe (then named Rhodesia after the businessman who stole the country). When actually he was representing only the tiniest minority of very foolish people.

We know all about people like this over here in Africa, don't we Onnie?

But Mr Crowe likes the feeling of being the king; it's almost as nice as the feeling one gets from being the president of a Rotary Club in a little town in the middle of nowhere that no one wants to go to.

Sorry, I should have said President, President with a capital P, because Mr Crowe always announces himself with a capital P.

He realizes that to deal with the underlying problems caused by his witchdoctor whose views about tokoloshes he promotes, even though deep inside he knows that they're lies, and the problems he causes us by the way he runs things in doing everything possible to prevent a proper ventilation of these lies, would mean the end of his reign as king with the crown he put on his own head, or asked a couple of his friends to put on his head. And he'd have to give up being the king, the king he likes being so much, either by abdicating in disgrace or being kicked out in disgrace with a hard boot up his arse for the tremendous harm he's caused our AIDS dissident movement, and remembered forever for the tremendous harm he's caused our AIDS dissident movement.

Particularly in the big case held by the elders in the shade of the big tree in the centre of the village concerning whether a certain man was causing the tokoloshe to come riding in on a hyena in the middle of the night when everyone was asleep to visit his neighbour and cause his cow to die and his mother to hurt her leg in a fall and his cousin to fail his exams.

In that case, the man accused had expert witnesses to explain to the court that he couldn't have done what he was being accused of having done because tokoloshes have never been proved to exist. And right in the middle of the case when it was going very well for the accused man and his expert witnesses, and everyone was noticing and commenting on how impressed the court was by the scientific evidence and arguments being presented, the President comes along, and behind the scenes he furtively tells the lawyer 'You're going to lose the case doing it this way, it's much better to tell the court that tokoloshes do exist, only they're harmless.' And not being a very bright lawyer, who also hasn't really had enough time to appreciate what's wrong with this kind of defence, and why the first and second defences are not complementary or alternative but must necessarily be mutually destructive, the lawyer thinks the President is right, why, he's the President of all the AIDS dissidents in the world, and he changes the defence strategy right in the middle of the case, when it was going very well as I said, and with that the case is on its way to hell, so that the unfortunate accused man ends up severely punished for calling out tokoloshes to visit and cause his neighbour's cow to die and his mother to hurt her leg in a fall and his cousin to fail his exams, and the historical opportunity is lost, the historical opportunity to show in court that despite what nearly everyone thinks and all the witchdoctors claim, actually tokoloshes have never been shown to exist.

And when it's all over the President doesn't even say I'm very sorry about the calamity I caused, I'm terribly sorry, I was only trying to help. I realize now that it's been pointed out to me that I made the most horrendous mistake. I feel sick to my stomach over what I have done.

No, he says, What are you complaining about? I did exactly the right thing going behind your backs and telling the lawyer to change his fundamental defence strategy right in the middle of the case and introduce a new defence that contradicts the original one.

He says, Go and jump in the lake, you and your complaints against me and what I did. You were going to lose the case anyway. I'd do it again!

So you see, Onnie, it would be better to avoid Rethinking AIDS for information about so-called HIV-AIDS.

It's always best to avoid taking advice from people who tell lies and behave in the way I've told you about.

You can get honest, reliable information about the basic trouble with the HIV theory of AIDS from the The Perth Group HIV-AIDS Debate Website.

My TIG Position Statement on 'HIV' will put you fully in the picture.

All the best

Anthony
Cape Town

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.

The Christine Maggiore Story: Final Chapter?

Christine Maggiore, the most visible AIDS denialist activist, died last December. As posted here and in many places, her death was no mystery. Having tested HIV positive in 1992 and refusing modern medical care, Christine Maggiore died from complications of AIDS. At the time we knew her death involved her suffering from pneumonia. We now know from her death certificate that the immediate cause of her death was disseminated herpes viral infection. This disease is so specific to CD4 cell loss it almost never occurs outside of HIV infection. Her bilateral bronchial pneumonia was an underlying condition that contributed to her death. Essentially, Christine Maggiore’s immune system collapsed. She was under the care of Ilona Abraham, a provider who had earned their degree from the Semmelweis University, the same Semmelweis that has not so clean hands having recently given Peter Duesberg and Celia Farber awards for their truthiness on AIDS. Christine Maggiore was a denialist to the end, choosing a provider who specializes in the use of chelation, mercury detoxification, homeopathy, and nutritional supplements rather than a modern medical doctor who may have actually been able to help her.

In yet another development in the sad story of Christine Maggiore, her husband Robin Scovill has settled their lawsuit against the Los Angeles Coroner’s office for allegedly erring when it determined their 3-year-old daughter Eliza Jane had died of AIDS-related causes.

According to the LA Times "The lawsuit demanded up to $10,000 for each violation of Eliza Jane's right to privacy, plus unspecified damages". The case was settled for $15,000. This ends another chapter in the saga of Christine Maggiore.

These sad details, as undeniable as they are, will mean nothing to AIDS denialists. The life and death of Christine Maggiore continues to inspire them to turn away from medicine and science. That is why, after all, it is called denialism.

UPDATE: How do AIDS denialists deny the undeniable? Visit AIDS Myth Exposed Forums and find out. Try this one on for size...

What Is HIV/AIDS Denialism?

"Denialism is the term used to describe the position of governments, political parties, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists. Such groups and individuals are said to be engaging in denialism when they seek to influence policy processes and outcomes by using rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. The term was first used in the sense of 'holocaust denialism', but the usage has broadened to include AIDS denialism, climate change denialism, and evolution denialism."


AIDS denialism actively propagates myths, misconceptions, and misinformation to distort and refute reality. Denialism is the outright rejection of science and medicine. It involves actively contradicting and disregarding medical advice. It is steady state. Denialism is not open to criticism, and evades modification. Denialism is only open to additional evidence supporting its tenets and such evidence most often comes from the misuse of science and from pseudoscience. AIDS denialists, often for the sake of personal preservation or recognition, hold fast to old ideas in the face of new evidence.

One feature of denialism is the tendency to think of the denialist position as beleaguered, and under attack and in a minority that has to stave off the assaults of the vast wrong-thinking majority. As a consequence, those involved in denialism often, in the other justifications for their position, declare their strong allegiance to the principle of free speech. Interestingly, then, denialists often set themselves up as plucky underdogs, battling for their right to speak the truth against a tide of misinformation and, as often as not, conspiracies aimed at keeping them silent.


Deniers and denialists are both terms that describe people who refuse to accept the historical reality of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. There are also 9/11 denialists and those who deny that man ever walked on the moon. Denialism emerges from defiance against objective historical records or, in the case of AIDS, defiance against established science. Still, those who doubt that the Holocaust or 9/11 ever happened do not identify themselves as “denialists” but rather “truth seekers”.

It is plain to see, however, that HIV/AIDS denialists represent just one variant of the broader phenomenon of denialism, sharing common characteristics with Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 Truthers, and others who refuse to accept an indisputable historical record. At the core of denialism is mistrust–in the case of HIV/AIDS, the mistrust is of science and medicine. Scholars have identified the characteristics of political extremists and fringe groups that promote Holocaust denialism. These same characteristics apply equally well to HIV/AIDS denialism.

Like other extremist groups, denialists hold an absolute certainty that they are the sole bearers of “The Truth.” For HIV/AIDS denialists, the truth is that HIV is a harmless virus that cannot possibly cause disease, and that anti-HIV medications amount to nothing more than poison, DNA terminators that can themselves cause AIDS. Second, extremist groups believe that governments are under the control of conspiring forces. In the case of HIV/AIDS denialism, the power of Big Pharma and the medical establishment have corrupted the National Institutes of Health and biomedical sciences in general. A third characteristic of extremists is a hatred for its opponents, often seen as conspiring with their enemies. HIV/AIDS denialists attack the most visible scientists; especially those who are widely exposed in the media as well as those who have publicly debunked their rhetoric. Fourth, extremists deny basic civil liberties to those whose views they see as their enemies. Ironically, denialists censor science by cherry-picking results of research while claiming to be the victims of censorship themselves, and often claiming that their rights to free expression are being systematically thwarted. Finally, denialists, as do extremists, indulge in irresponsible accusations and character assassination. As expected, denialists refer to AIDS scientists and medical specialists as Nazis, the mafia, and murderers.

Psychologist Michael Shermer is the leading authority on Holocaust denialism and he has found that Holocaust deniers’ “fallacies of reasoning are eerily similar to those of other fringe groups, such as creationists”. Remarkably, these same personality features that Shermer describes in holocaust deniers are immediately recognizable among HIV/AIDS denialists. First, denialism concentrates on opponents’ weak points without making definitive statements about their own position. In HIV/AIDS denialism, without a shred of credible evidence to the contrary, there is an incessant call for the one study that proves HIV causes AIDS while not recognizing the thousands of studies that accumulate to irrefutably show that HIV causes AIDS. Even knowing the complexity of HIV and the barriers it poses to vaccines, Peter Duesberg looked me dead in the eyes and said that failure to achieve an HIV vaccine means that an infectious agent cannot be the cause of AIDS. Second, denialists exploit errors made by AIDS scientists, implying that a few errors detected in a mass of work calls into question the entire scientific enterprise.

Holocaust and HIV/AIDS denialism share other common features. For both, millions of people died with the vast majority of Holocaust historians and AIDS scientists confirming the causes. The enormity of human suffering caused by the Holocaust and that of a plague like AIDS offers a platform for denialism. Another commonality is that conspiracy theories drive both Holocaust and HIV/AIDS denialism. There are striking similarities in rhetoric, using selected excerpts from credible documents and calling for a debate on matters for which there is universal agreement. Denialist groups of all types claim mounting controversy and the need for a debate. Both Holocaust and HIV/AIDS denialism have established their own publication outlets, such as the Journal for Historical Review for Holocaust denialism and Continuum magazine in HIV/AIDS denialism. There are full-length films produced by both movements, The Truth behind the Gates of Auschwitz, produced by David Cole for Holocaust denialism and HIV=AIDS: Fact or Fraud, produced by Gary Null and The Other Side of AIDS produced by Eric Paulson and Robert Leppo for HIV/AIDS denialism. The major deniers of the Holocaust are knowledgeable of World War II history and on the fringes of academia, just as the major HIV/AIDS denialists are well versed in the science of AIDS. Denialists of all types seize opportunities by political leaders who express support for their denialism, as has occurred in 2006 by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad expressing doubt that the Holocaust occurred and President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa expressing doubt that HIV causes AIDS.

My book Denying AIDS and this blog are intended to debunk AIDS denialism and open access to the facts surrounding the human tragedy of HIV/AIDS.

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.