Below is an excerpt from a new study published by Seth C. Kalichman, Lisa Eaton, & Chauncey Cherry in Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Click here to obtain the full article or write me for a reprint.
Introduction
Fringe and extremist groups that challenge well-established historical and scientific facts have become increasingly visible, particularly on the Internet. Holocaust Deniers, for example, claim that Nazi Germany did not systematically kill 6 million Jews and Global Warming Deniers believe that climatology is a flawed science with no proof of greenhouse gases changing the atmosphere. Among the most vocal anti-science denial movements is AIDS Denialism, an outgrowth of the radical views of University of California biologist Peter Duesberg. Duesberg claims that HIV and all other retroviruses are harmless and that AIDS is actually caused by illicit drug abuse, poverty, and antiretroviral medications. Until recently, AIDS scientists have largely ignored denialists, stating that they are no longer relevant and are not a threat to HIV/AIDS treatment and care.
Unfortunately, ignoring AIDS denialists has not addressed the problem and AIDS denialism is flourishing as a result. AIDS denialism promotes the idea that HIV is harmless and cannot cause any disease, most certainly not AIDS. Some AIDS denialists claim that there is no proof that HIV exists at all. HIV antibody tests are said to be invalid because anyone can test HIV positive, people who do test positive do not develop AIDS, and there are people who develop AIDS who have never tested HIV positive. AIDS denialism rejects HIV treatments as toxic poisons that do more harm than good. The central tenant of AIDS denialism is that there is an ongoing debate among legitimate scientists regarding whether HIV even exists and if it does exist whether HIV causes AIDS. AIDS denialism intersects with AIDS conspiracy theories, and may impede HIV prevention and treatment.
The adverse effects of AIDS denialism have been most discussed in South Africa, where former President Thabo Mbeki gave equal credibility to AIDS Denialists and genuine AIDS scientists. As a result, the South African government delayed HIV testing and thwarted efforts to distribute antiretroviral medications. The result was devastating, with over 330,000 South Africans dying earlier than necessary from AIDS and over 35,000 babies needlessly HIV infected because medications that can prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission were not made available. Other African countries have followed South Africa by embracing AIDS denialism, such as Gambia where the President claims to cure AIDS with a potion revealed by his ancestors.
Recent research suggests that AIDS denialism is undermining HIV prevention and treatment in the US. One study of gay and bisexual men in five US cities showed that 45% of men agreed with the statement “HIV does not cause AIDS” and 51% of men agreed with the statement “HIV/AIDS drugs can harm you more than help you”. A study of people living with HIV/AIDS also found surprisingly high rates of AIDS denialist beliefs, with 17% of infectious disease clinic patients in Baltimore agreeing with the statement “HIV does not cause AIDS”. Wald et al. showed that AIDS denialist beliefs were most frequently endorsed by patients who were not being treated with antiretroviral medications, suggesting a vulnerability to AIDS denialist rhetoric.
The current study examined AIDS denialism beliefs in a community sample of men and women living with HIV/AIDS. We hypothesized that people living with HIV/AIDS who use the Internet will be more inclined to endorse AIDS denialism beliefs and that interest in misinformation taken from the internet will be associated with greater endorsement of AIDS denialist beliefs. In addition, we hypothesized that people living with HIV/AIDS who believe that there is a debate among scientists about whether HIV causes AIDS would demonstrate less use of antiretroviral medications, poorer treatment adherence, and poorer HIV-related health status.
Key Findings
Results showed that AIDS denialism beliefs were common in our sample with more than one in five participants endorsing at least one AIDS denialism belief. Comparisons of less frequent and more frequent internet users indicated a pattern of differences that confirmed our first hypothesis; AIDS denialism beliefs were more often endorsed by more frequent users of the internet. Participants who used the internet at least weekly were significantly more likely to believe that there is a debate among scientists about whether HIV causes AIDS, the central tenant of AIDS denialism. More frequent internet users were also significantly more likely to believe that there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS. More frequent internet users also endorsed treatment denialist beliefs, particularly the notion that HIV is treatable using herbal and non-toxic natural remedies.
Interest in AIDS denialism websites
Ninety-seven (28%) participants indicated that they planned to look up additional information from the AIDS denialist website of Rath International after reading the passage. Participants (N = 128, 37%) also planned to look up additional information from the AIDS denialist website by Jonathan Campbell. As a point of comparison, 147 (42%) planned to look up nutrition information from Tufts Medical School. As expected, believability and trust ratings were higher among participants who planned to look up additional information from each of the three website passages. Believability and trust ratings for the two AIDS denialist websites were lower than Tuft’s medical website.
Participants who planned to look up additional information from Rath International and Jonathan Campbell endorsed greater AIDS denialism beliefs than those not planning to look up additional information. In contrast, the difference between participants who did and did not plan to look up information from the Tufts (control) website did not differ on AIDS denialism beliefs.
AIDS denialism beliefs and health outcomes
Confirming our second hypothesis, individuals who believed that there is a debate among scientists as to whether HIV causes AIDS were significantly less likely to be receiving antiretroviral therapy. In addition, those who were taking medications and endorsed AIDS denialism beliefs were significantly less adherent to their medications. Participants who endorsed the central AIDS denialism belief that there is a debate among scientists had experienced more HIV related symptoms and were less likely to have an undetectable viral load compared to participants who did not endorse this belief.
Finally, among participants who were not currently taking antiretroviral medications (N = 140), we found those who believed that scientists are debating whether HIV causes AIDS endorsed reasons for not taking medications that are propagated by AIDS denialism; simply not wanting to take antiretroviral medications and not trusting the safety of HIV medications (see
Conclusions
Results of the current study indicate that beliefs aligned with AIDS denialism were common in our community sample of people living with HIV/AIDS. Although overall endorsements of multiple denialism beliefs were low, more than one in three participants endorsed the belief that there is a debate among scientists as to whether HIV causes AIDS and one in five agreed with the statement that there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS. Participants also endorsed statements consistent with AIDS denialist views on HIV treatments including that antiretroviral medications do more harm than good. Endorsements of AIDS denialism-related beliefs were similar to those observed in other research with HIV positive men and women and are consistent with findings from community surveys with gay men in major US cities. Exit interviews confirmed that participants understood the denialism belief items. Although participants did not represent 'AIDS dissidents' per se, their beliefs suggest a vulnerability to misinformation and fraud.
The association between internet use and AIDS denialism beliefs occurred despite better education and more accurate AIDS knowledge. One potential explanation for this paradoxical finding is that knowledge is not the same as beliefs. More frequent use of the Internet has the potential to expose users to both accurate and false information. In our sample, the internet was commonly used to find treatment information and these internet search functions practically assure exposure to AIDS denialist websites. We found that participants who expressed interest in accessing additional information from recognized AIDS denialism websites also held stronger AIDS denialism beliefs, an association not observed with our control website passage. Trust and believability ratings were also higher than would be expected by the number of denialism beliefs that were endorsed. One explanation for the discrepancy is that participants may have been more willing to endorse trusting information than openly endorsing ideas that clearly fall outside the mainstream. Given the difficulty that many people living with HIV/AIDS face in discriminating quality health information from quackery and fraud online, the vulnerability to AIDS denialism among AIDS affected populations is apparent.
The current study is among the first to show adverse health outcomes associated with AIDS denialism beliefs. Controlling for potential confounds, we found that individuals who endorsed the core belief that there is a debate among scientists as to whether HIV causes AIDS were less likely to receive HIV treatments and more likely to refuse medications. Furthermore, participants who believed there is a debate and were being treated with antiretroviral medications were less adherent to their medications. Agreeing that there is a debate about whether HIV causes AIDS was also related to experiencing more HIV-related symptoms and having a detectable viral load. The false hope that comes with believing that scientists do not agree that HIV causes AIDS therefore has the potential to undermine HIV prevention and treatment.
The results of this study highlight the complexity of HIV disease and the difficulty many patients experience in trying to understand their diagnosis. Simple measures of AIDS knowledge, such as the one used in this study, may fail to capture the nuances and subtle aspects of misinformation. Determining the trustworthiness of information sources is also problematic, with labels and credentials easily confused for credibility. Because the current study did not examine the origins of AIDS denial, future research is needed to trace the individual and cultural roots of denialism beliefs. Further research is needed on how vulnerable patients understand their diagnoses, interpret health information, and format health beliefs. Mixed designs of qualitative and quantitative research may be particularly useful in gaining insight into these cognitive and affective processes.
Openly discussing the baseless views of AIDS denialists and exposing the pseudoscience behind AIDS denialism is key to diluting its impact. Individuals exposed to the false hope that their HIV positive test result is meaningless may reject these claims if they are aware of the source and recognize they are false. Improving critical thinking skills among people who use the internet to seek health information is essential to reducing the harms of AIDS denialism. Interventions aimed at improving internet health consumer skills have demonstrated positive effects and can directly address AIDS denialism. Finally, providers should discuss the evidence-base for HIV treatments and standards of care with their patients. Leaving patients on their own to determine the quality of health information they encounter on the Internet leaves many vulnerable to misinformation, denialism and fraud. Ignoring AIDS denialism undermines our best efforts to test, engage, and care for people living with HIV/AIDS.
Speaking of scientific articles... Oh Billy, here is a new one for your reading list.
ReplyDeleteDosekun O, Fox J. 2010. An overview of the relative risks of different sexual behaviours on HIV transmission. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 5, 291-297.
Not that AIDS Deniers can read science.
Global warming is not caused by human excesses. It is big business conceived by its proponents.
ReplyDeleteSeth,
ReplyDeleteIt's exhausting pointing out the same factual errors to you. It really is unnecessary to repeat falsehoods as though they are fact simply to bolster your point; and it has the effect of discrediting the rest of your work.
@”As a result, the South African government delayed HIV testing” – It never did such a thing. It was the government’s policy to encourage HIV testing.
@ “thwarted efforts to distribute antiretroviral medications.” – It never did, it proposed a more managed distribution program starting with pilot sites (for two years) treating 10 percent of the patients requiring treatment and using the lessons from these pilot sites to better rollout treatment universally. They have subsequently been proven to have been correct because errors have been made which would not have occurred if the program was commenced with a pilot program. No doubt thousands have died because of this and are unreported because it is inconvenient to do so to those who insisted on a universal roll out in a country without sufficient infrastructure for such a rollout.
@”The result was devastating, with over 330,000 South Africans dying earlier than necessary from AIDS and over 35,000 babies needlessly HIV infected”. This is false. Your data of 330 000 deaths is derived from a study by individuals who sought to prove a specific result (that RSA’s policy was incorrect) and thus sought the data that supports their contention whilst ignoring data to the opposite. What has still not been explained is why the exponential incidents of deaths that was predicted has not occurred and annual deaths oscillate between 350 000 to 500 000 figures consistently in the face of a scourge. And what is not being admitted is that Mbeki’s government authored the very policy which is currently at use and is praised by the likes of the TAC.
@ “Other African countries have followed South Africa by embracing AIDS denialism,”. This is a blatant falsehood without an grounding in reality.
One will invariably start question the bona fides of the so-called orthodoxy when falsehoods such as the above are regurgitated with such gratuitous abandon.
Regards,
Nokwindla
Also, it is logically unsound (at least in my unlearned opinion) to group those who oppose the notion of human caused global warming, those who oppose the occurrence of the holocaust and those who question the science underlying HIV and Aids. In fact I find that most of those who deny the validity of human caused global warming tend to hold the same views as those who support everything originating from those who subscribe to the “orthodox” view on HIV and Aids (typically middle class corporate types who are enslaved by big corporates/business).
ReplyDeleteThe same applies to your tendency towards absolutes. For example, many people that I know believe HIV causes Aids, etc, but refuse to subscribe to the view that ARVs are efficient or anything more than poisons; some believe HIV causes Aids but question the veracity of HIV tests; some believe that HIV causes Aids but believe that the pandemic is to a lesser or more extent exaggerated, some question the role of the “Aids Industry” and its impact on finding solutions, etc, etc. The same applies to climate change, some believe humans have a cause but are not as much a cause as the sun or volcanoes or the gaseous discards of cattle, etc.
So it truly does amaze me how you lump together different people with different views (some who despise each other, eg. the recent bitter conflict in the so-called rethinking movement) and ascribe a label and afterwards point to the differences (incoherence amongst them) as evidence of their baseless contention! I personally think that dissidents are pointing our critical issues that have been ignored by the mainstream and that the failure of HIV and/or Aids science to find a resolution after nearly thirty years is manifestly a consequence of the disengagement of “denialists/dissidents” and the “mainstream”. In fact I predict that no lasting resolution of this scourge will ever result as long as this disengagement, intolerance, churlishness and general childishness continues.
Nokwindla
"What has still not been explained is why the exponential incidents of deaths that was predicted has not occurred and annual deaths oscillate between 350 000 to 500 000 figures consistently in the face of a scourge."
ReplyDeleteYou are in denial, Nokwindla.
South African deaths have not "oscillated" "consistently". You sound exactly like one of the authors of Duesenbauer's Med Hype Out of touch with South African AIDS fiasco. They also described an obvious steady fortyfold climb in (antenatal) HIV seroprevalence as "oscillating".
Deaths have climbed steadily year by year from 1997 to 2006:
1997 317,000
1998 365,000
1999 381,000
2000 415,000
2001 453,000
2002 500,000
2003 554,000
2004 572,000
2005 591,000
2006 607,000
And no, don't try and pass this off as the result of improved completion of death notifications to Stats SA: most of the additional deaths show up in a very clear age-pattern:
http://www.tac.org.za/images/MortalityGraph.png
Sorry if I sound churlish.
"I personally think that dissidents are pointing our critical issues that have been ignored by the mainstream..."
ReplyDeleteWhat "critical issues" are the denialists pointing out? That HIV doesn't really exist? That HIV isn't the cause of AIDS - it's really caused by poppers and smack and the immunosuppressive actions of semen in the bum? That HAART doesn't prolong lives - it's only good as a fungicide? That virtually every HIV/AIDS scientist and clinician in the world is too stupid and/or corrupt to tell the truth?
These aren't "critical" issues. They are straight out, homicidally negligent lies, and are being deliberately and systematically targeted at the most vulnerable audience possible.
"...and that the failure of HIV and/or Aids science to find a resolution after nearly thirty years is manifestly a consequence of the disengagement of “denialists/dissidents” and the “mainstream”."
Tell us, Nokwindla, what kind of useful engagement is there to have with denialists like these?
There I go, being all churlish and intolerant again.
(You are in denial, Nokwindla. South African deaths have not "oscillated" "consistently".)
ReplyDeleteActually I am not in denial. Thing is, I live in South Africa and the communities that you theorize about. The fact of the matter is that between 1997 to date, there’s been an increase in the ability of the state to capture data, through the construction of more Home Affairs departments (responsible for births and deaths registrations) in communities and death and birth registration campaigns.
Interestingly, the roll out of ARVs and the related infrastructure has led to a diversion of funding from other sectors of the healthcare system with the consequent decline in health levels (see the Free State scenario for example). So, yes, there is serious intervention regarding those who are suffering from Aids, but overall the healthcare system is in decline. Funding for ARVs is gradually reducing all other items in a situation of declining revenues. This no doubt has consequences.
Further more, on the figures that YOU provided herewith the oscillating increases and decreases of deaths between each relevant period: 48,000; 16,000; 34,000; 38,000; 47,000; 54,000; 18,000; 19,000; 16,000. In my book an annualized increase of 48000 (1997 to 1998) and a subsequent increase of only 16 000 (1998 to 1999), is not an alarming increase! Granted, I’m no mathematician but it seems to me that death figures are increasing but not alarmingly, particularly when considered in light of ever improving registration of deaths, an increasing growth rate, a collapsing health care system with more deaths from preventable conditions, etc, etc. Certainly AIDS is partly the reason but the stats don’t support the predictions of the AIDS industry in the 90s and early 2000s (we were informed that a third of the population of the KZN would be dead from Aids, a quarter of the Eastern Cape, etc!). Amazingly in the face of the good news, that the predictions were substantially incorrect and therefore the predicted large-scale depopulation (from Aids) and the consequent catastrophe has not occurred, many in the “orthodoxy” are unhappy! Rather than ask how experts could have gotten the figures so wrong, they choose rather to allege that the majority of the slightly increased deaths are a result of Aids cases (and HIV by implication), without a shred of evidence. Something is seriously wrong when an industry reasons in this manner.
Your approach reminds me of those who would accuse the post-liberation government of needlessly causing deaths by pointing out the reduced life expectancy in South Africa, whilst ignoring the obvious reasons for that (i.e. that pre-1994 South Africa only accurately recorded white deaths and deaths of urban blacks whilst not accurately recording deaths in the so-called Bantustans. In fact through the migrant labour system, black workers were sent back to these Bantustans when they were sick and could not work thus their deaths were never accurately recorded as part of the total death rate of RSA. Post-liberation, the recoding of deaths is more accurate and transparent and inclusive, thus a declining death rate, which in reality is reflective of the status that has always been! Incidentally, Aids activities grab to the same stats as evidence of the catastrophic pandemic).
Aids is causing plentiful deaths in RSA but not as many as what is alleged by Aids pundits. 20% less, 50%, 1% less, I don’t know, but I thing we should find out if we are better allocate resources to fight this disease. These aspects are sadly ignored by the orthodoxy, because they are inconvenient, thus we rely on “denialists” and “dissidents” to push the envelope of enquiry, notwithstanding our general indifference to the childish game that you all seem to enjoy of "i am right, No, I Am RIGHT".
Nokwindla
@ Snout :..."What "critical issues" are the denialists pointing out?”
ReplyDelete(1).Issues such as: the corruption of science and health policy by the co-option of scientists by corporate interests, (2) about the right to dissent and societies responsibility to protect those who do so from retribution, (3) difficult issues, such as whether the allocation of resources to ARV programs (to a minority of the population) is appropriate and morally defensible when it results in the decline in the level of healthcare received by the vast majority in society, etc.
@Snout “Tell us, Nokwindla, what kind of useful engagement is there to have with denialists like these?”
I was proposed in South Africa through the presidential aids advisory grouping that consisted of a majority orthodox scientist and a few dissidents. I’m sure that if it had not been politicized, that dissidents (if they are indeed cranks) would have been revealed as such or vice versa if it is you guys who are cranks. In response to the establishment of to this panel, the orthodoxy preferred to rather declare war and issue the (in)famous Durban Declaration! I find that extraordinary that contending scientists are given a forum to engage on an issue that has ramifications (supposedly) to the lives of Millions, and all they must do is present their contending versions directly an transparently, consider them on their merits and demerits, extricate the nonsense from the substance, and present findings and a proposals. It was proposed at the time by the south African government that it would be willing to fund any experimental work that might be required to conclusively or otherwise prove any contention, yet this was ignored when at best it would have irrevocably sifted the genuine from the cranks! Amazing…in any event that was an example of a form of engagement, not the present finger pointing on inane web blogs.
Snout the previous post addressed to you without the details of the sender was from me, Nokwindla.
ReplyDeleteKind regards.
"Actually I am not in denial."
ReplyDeleteA key feature to denial is that you don't know you are in it. You need sane and rational people...like the vast majority of the population...to show that you are in denial. Objective reality tells you that you are in denial. The facts speak for themselves..and in this case the facts scream out at you.
But if you wont listen...you stay in denial.
Nokwindla,
ReplyDeleteYou stated:
"I find that extraordinary that contending scientists are given a forum to engage on an issue that has ramifications (supposedly) to the lives of Millions, and all they must do is present their contending versions directly an transparently, consider them on their merits and demerits, extricate the nonsense from the substance, and present findings and a proposals."
I have been tring to accomplish just such a thing for several months. First Elizabeth Ely offered to debate me around December 2009. After I jumper thru her hoops and accomplshed her requests, she backed off without even being professional enough to offer up an explanation.
A few weeks ago I made an offer to Jonathan Barnett of resistanceisfruitful to have a monthly Point/Counterpoint Discussion. Mr. Barnett chose to use a sincere, gracious, adult and professional offer to shit on my reputation and call me names that I will not repeat here.
So perhaps you will understand that there are some of us on the orthodox side jumping thru hoops and thinking outside the box to get a dialogue going. The trouble is, the Dissidents know they do not understand the science and would lose based solely on facts and logic. Therefore, they must rely upon the same tactics that cults use; isolation of their minions and thought control. They are so desperately afraid of letting the light of truth shine on their zombies for fear that the mind control will be broken by the sheer weight and force of truth and logic.
JTD
Also, Nokwindla, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"Also, it is logically unsound (at least in my unlearned opinion) to group those who oppose the notion of human caused global warming, those who oppose the occurrence of the holocaust and those who question the science underlying HIV and Aids."
I am sorry to differ, but from my extensive reading on the subject, the most vociferous opponents to orthodox science, such as Liam Scheff and Henry Bauer also believe VEHEMENTLY in opposing what they term "scientism" and this is any established fact of science. Liam Scheff has recently backed the notion that Pangea and Gowndowna, two large land masses, have moved apart not from plate tectonics, but from the earth getting bigger!
Also, Scheff has called Darwin and Crick idiots and puts Lamarckism in place of Darwinism as a better, more astute reason to explain Evolution!! Never mind that intermediate fossils have been found where they are theorized to be. Just look the other way when you come across vestigial organs!
These peeople are called cranks and will LITERALLY believe what the majority does not. That would be fine, were it not for all the damned pesky annoying FACTS that gettin in their way!!
People who believe in the Loch Ness monster and anything that is not supported by facts are troublemakers, further obfuscating the facts for us rational people.
JTD
Bravo Nokwinda!
ReplyDeleteI hadn't thought how the orthodoxy simply abandoned the South African popluation by refusing to take part in the Presidential Aids Panel. You make some very salient and probably uncomfortable points to them.
Had they had the courage of their convictions and faith in their theory they should have stayed and had it out with the nasty minority denialists once and for all.
Instead they chose the back door approach of TAC, TAG, AIDSTRTUH and generally shouting from the sidelines.
Supposing just for a second that the orthodoxy had it right and 365,000 Africans died as a result of delayed ARV therapies then they are just as guilty through their arrogance at refusing to be a part of the process.
Now that IS Reckless Engangerment.
We see it time and again with these hypocrites, they refuse to engage publicly using the excuse that they are right and that's all there is to it.
As for Todd claiming to jump through hoops to engage, I'm not sure that shouting vitriolic insults through the Blogosphere really cuts it. But then his attitude is a bonus for us as it displays their true natures exquisitly. And they still can't fully understand how dissidence gains ground when an orthodox mouthpiece hysterically rants about "Chickenshit, Douchebag Losers yada yada yada.
I'd have at least thought a professor of psychology could see the counterproductive nature of that style, yet he remains a faithful ally, makes you wonder.
Go on Anonymous. Lets hear some more. What does it make you wonder about me?
ReplyDeleteNokwinda.. you are probably the last South African (Crazies like Brink and Robert Ronalds, or whatever his name is, aside) to stay true to Mbeki/Manto. The entire country is moving forward. You know, I your country. I will return in a few weeks. I have lost count, but I think this will be my 25th trip since 2002.
So Anonymous, have you ever been to South Africa? Ever know a South African who died of AIDS. Mbeki said he did not. But I have... several...no less than 3 on our team there.
Nokwinda..
"How can you stand next to the truth and not see it?" (Who said that?)
Surprisingly to you, yes I have been to South Africa.
ReplyDeleteOf those 3 on your team that died of AIDS, were any of them on your life saving ARV's? And apart from the blanket diagnoses of "complications due to AIDS" what were the causes of death? Could it have been pulmonary TB of course AIDS related, or perhaps a little bit of liver or kidney failure, again AIDS related. Or was someone unlucky enough to have been hit by an AIDS related truck.
Seth "K", Yada yada yada.
"Further more, on the figures that YOU provided herewith the oscillating increases and decreases of deaths between each relevant period"
ReplyDeleteWhat “decreases of deaths”? Deaths have increased every year.
"Granted, I’m no mathematician but it seems to me that death figures are increasing but not alarmingly, particularly when considered in light of ever improving registration of deaths, an increasing growth rate, a collapsing health care system with more deaths from preventable conditions, etc, etc."
Please take another more careful look at the graph I provided, which is figure 3.4 from
http://www.statssa.gov.za/Publications/P03093/P030932003,2004.pdf
Note that it shows clearly that between 1997 and 2004 there was a marked increase in deaths in the specific age group of young adults during this period. If you check the source document, Mortality and causes of death in South Africa, 2003 and 2004: Findings from death notification you will note that in this 8 year period there was a doubling of the number of recorded deaths in young males and a tripling of deaths among young female adults.
The peak age of death overall for males was 35-39 and females 30-34.This peak became dramatically more marked over the 8 year period. You don’t need to be a mathematician to grasp this.
This age distribution of deaths is not normal, even for the most poverty-stricken, war torn or famine ridden country in the world (and South Africa is none of these). I can think of no possible underlying cause of death that could account for such an unprecedented age and sex distribution of deaths in a community – except for HIV/AIDS
This distribution itself, and the change in distribution between 1997 and 2004 cannot be accounted for by improved registration of deaths, or increased overall population, or handwaving accusations of a “collapsing health system”. None of these can produce this kind of age distribution of deaths.
If you are still struggling to grasp the enormity of the catastrophe demonstrated by the age distribution statistics, here is the age distribution of female deaths (per 100,000) for 1997 and 2004 in comparison to those of Brazil 2004. (Brazil is a country at a comparable level of development to South Africa, and with a similar level of maldistribution of wealth).
http://www.tac.org.za/images/femaleMortalityGraph.png
And if you are not “alarmed” by a threefold increase over eight years in the numbers of deaths in young South African women (give or take a small proportion due to population increase and improved registration) – then you are either extraordinarily sanguine - or in denial.
“…we rely on “denialists” and “dissidents” to push the envelope of enquiry, notwithstanding our general indifference to the childish game that you all seem to enjoy of "i am right, No, I Am RIGHT".”
ReplyDeleteNokwindla, I’m not sure if we are on the same page about what an HIV/AIDS denialist is.
An HIV/AIDS denialist is someone claims that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
Some of them also claim that HIV does not exist. Most also claim that HIV testing is useless, and that antiretroviral therapy, including that to reduce mother to child transmission is ineffective and does more harm than good. They also deny flat out that AIDS is caused by a sexually transmissible infectious agent.
Worse, many of the most prominent HIV/AIDS denialists are involved in a semi-organised project to propagate these beliefs to the most vulnerable audiences they can find: people with or at risk of HIV/AIDS, and who lack the scientific background to be able to critically assess the veracity of these assertions.
This is not “pushing the envelope of enquiry”. It is insane, morally reprehensible, exploitative, and profoundly harmful. It has nothing to do with healthy scientific debate, or debate about health policy. Denialists use various rhetorical and political strategies to produce the illusion of legitimate debate, when in fact there is none. Their project is ideological, not scientific.
"I’m sure that if it [the presidential AIDS advisory panel] had not been politicized, that dissidents (if they are indeed cranks) would have been revealed as such or vice versa if it is you guys who are cranks."
This is an extraordinarily naïve assertion. If by the year 2000 anyone who had taken the trouble to familiarize themselves with the basic science of HIV/AIDS was unable to discern that Duesberg, Bialy, “Professor” Papadopulos. “Dr” Giraldo, et al were cranks on the subject, then I doubt they’ll ever work it out. Even the most cursory background check of credentials and practical experience in this field should have rung alarm bells as to the total lack of relevant expertise among the invited denialists.
For Mbeki to expect legitimate scientists and physicians to try to “debate” whether HIV exists and whether it causes AIDS with these loons for his personal edification and entertainment was insulting, contemptuous and insightless. It was a politicized farce from the moment of its conception, and could never have been otherwise.
Denialism, by its very nature, is not amenable to productive debate. Denialists do not change their views in the face of evidence. It is a mistake to confuse them with honest brokers. And it was Mbeki’s lack of insight into this fact of human psychology, and his lack of insight into his own limited capacity to evaluate “scientific” claims that is at least in part to blame for the HIV/AIDS burden suffered by South Africa.
Unfortunately, they were not able to receive HIV treatments. Thanks to that President Paranoia Mbeki.
ReplyDeleteThey were good people. A real loss.
It is sad that you can be so ignorant and yet adamant in their ignorance.
Their immune systems crashed. One did have TB. But I wonder why the TB was not responsive to treatment? The other two developed an array of diseases that are easily controlled by a healthy immune system.
So tell me again how you would explain this?? Would love to be reminded.
I am impressed that you have visited South Africa. Too bad you hide behind an Anonymous posting.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"If by the year 2000 anyone who had taken the trouble to familiarize themselves with the basic science of HIV/AIDS was unable to discern that Duesberg, Bialy, “Professor” Papadopulos. “Dr” Giraldo, et al were cranks on the subject, then I doubt they’ll ever work it out."
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like and IS a cop-out. What is at stake here is AIDS education and awareness. If it fails, do not blame the denialists or the poor misguided souls that listen to them but blame the educators. They are the ones that systematically abandon the field of education to nessie hunters and the like. Its a shame that education should fall apart when people feel too insulted to do it. If indeed 350'000 people did die because of Mbeki's denialism then AIDS educators shoulder the blame in equal measures.
Seth, your failure as an aids educator and psychologist is revealed when people who have bought into the denialist argument are simply dismissed by you as "crazies". Is that all you are good for?
Anonymous, I have not just shouted "chicken shit, douchebags" like a man with tourrets. I have first supplied solid fact after solid fact PROVING they are liars, hypocrites and in some cases definitive murderers. I'm sorry if the translation to "chicken shit, douchebags" offends your ears, but perhaps you need an attitude adjustment.
ReplyDeleteAs Aimee Mann sang:
"Acting steady always ready to defend your fears
What's the matter with the truth, did I offend your ears?"
I, for one, am a man of integrity and honesty. I can admit my mistakes and I have done so publicly. I have even admitted when I have crossed over a line and apologized accordingly and publicly. I have NEVER seen a "dissident" acknowledge their lies or hypocrisyor ANY ERROR (I have enough solid examples at D4D to choke a horse) and do the right thing and apologize or admit wrong doing. What does that tell you?
And if you read both of my requests to Jonathan Barnett you would have seen they were gracious beyond his worth. I can say that definitively from the snarling, debauched, repulsive spew of filth he wrote me back. And he was too chicken shit to write the second one publicly. NOPE. He sent it as a prviate email and said that I would be "untrustworthy" if I posted it. That sounds to me like a person who knows he has respond with vitriol and lies to a gracious, sincere request.
And for the record, if you can find anything that I have written about anyone that I have not backed up with solid facts, I will redact it and apologize personally to that person specifically and to the public generally. Can you/would you do the same?
JTD
What is at stake here is AIDS education and awareness. If it fails, do not blame the denialists or the poor misguided souls that listen to them but blame the educators.
ReplyDeleteYeah, right, and if someone dies of gunshot wound it's not the person who pulled the trigger who should be charged, but the trauma surgeon who failed to save the victim's life, despite all her best efforts.
Mbeki was, and apparently remains, uneducable on HIV/AIDS. It's not that he's unintelligent or lacks the formal education to be able to grasp the basic facts of the science: what you need to understand is that denialism is not a question of intelligence or education - it's a type of psychological disorder.
Trying to educate a denialist out of their denialism is like trying to educate an acutely ill schizophrenic out of his delusions. People who attempt either fail to understand that denialism, like psychotic delusion, is not amenable to reason, because it is not a position arrived at, or maintained by, reason.
However a denialist is not the same as someone who is merely misinformed, or wrong, or lacking in information. For people like this and who want to learn then yes of course very effort should be spent to get accurate information to them.
But don't waste your time trying to educate denialists. The only value in engaging them in what passes for debate is for the edification of bystanders. Even then it can be extremely tiresome, because denialists are not honest brokers, and use opportunities for pseudo-debate to deploy their long worn out rhetorical routines and for rehearsing their long list of discredited argumentoids.
If you haven't worked this out yet, then try reading some of the comment threads on this blog - see if you can find an example of a denialist shifting their understanding in the face of specific and overwhelming evidence. They don't. They disappear, or change the subject, or Gish Gallop or switch to contentless barracking and rhetorical sockpuppetry, like Anonymous June 30, 2010 9:03 PM, above.
If I could substitute my long overdue assignment -- the damnable Boily book report -- for another project, I'd really appreciate it, Seth. Could I be your research assistant? I have written a sample for your next peer-reviewed paper!
ReplyDeleteDENYING DENIALISTS IN DENIAL.
Abstract: There is a group of denying deniers who deny that they are in denial. Since AIDS is a terrible disease caused by a virus, these deniers are in denial. Denying the undeniable appears to be a defense mechanism to explain their denialist tendencies.
This paper, without denying reality, will seek to explicate the denial of those poor souls who deny their own denialism. HIV causes AIDS -- that is undeniable. AZT is fun -- that is undeniable. So, why deny it? Because they are in denial, and deny the repercussions of their own denialism. Mind you, this is not a river in Egypt, but a textbook case of denialism. To deny this, is undeniable.
Back again so soon, Bill?
ReplyDeleteI notice you ignored my question the last time I asked it, so here I go again:
You claimed that because the prosepctive arm of one of Padian's studies of serodiscordant heterosexual couples identified no transmissions, this apparently proves that HIV is not sexually transmissible. Because according to you:
"At least 1 person should have seroconverted after 6 years of condomless sex"
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/2010/05/living-in-denial.html?showComment=1274935300790#c3321692734013017649
I asked you (as the resident Padian expert) how many discordant couples in the relevant study had, as you say, "6 years of condomless sex".
You ignored my question, and scutttled back under your bridge.
So could you tell us please? Or is giving a direct answer to a direct question a violation of the AIDS Denialist Internet Troll Code of Conduct?
Bill,
ReplyDeleteHow is it you could possibly have needed this much time to read and understand the Boily paper? I'm guessing you haven't taken a look at it yet simply because none of your denialist sites have tried to comment on it. Am I right? It's pretty sad when someone who seems to believe himself knowledgeable to criticize every mainstream AIDS researcher can't understand one review. Sadder still is that you seem incapable of admitting this, not to us but to yourself. Sad and very telling.
Sounds like Bauer wrote that unintelligible bit of dribble piss!
ReplyDeleteJTD
I agree. Bill is a very sad case. Facing HIV/AIDS is no easy task. But JTD and millions of others have managed to face it and are healthier as a result.
ReplyDeleteBill has bought into the crap he CAN read at Rethinking VirusMyth websites so much, he is drowning in it. He is a rebel without a cause. Just like Maggiore before him, he stands next to the truth and does not see it.
Asking him to read and comment the Boily article that reviews HIV transmission studies, including Padian - the Denialist Rant favorite, was probably never fair because of his background. But it does illustrate how he and others who follow the AIDS Deniers cannot think on their own. It is the great paradox in denialism... The believe they are the true independent skeptics, and they are actually brainwashed by propagandists like David Crowe and the Celia Fiber.
Bill is a victim of the crazies. I am afraid he has dug himself in to too deep to get out.
"I am afraid he has dug himself in to too deep to get out."
ReplyDeleteWhich is exactly why I seriously doubt he will ever give an answer to Snout's question of: "how many discordant couples in the [Padien] study had, as [Bill said], "6 years of condomless sex".
To admit to being wrong takes a great deal of honesty, not just to others but to one's self. I don't think I have yet to see Bill admit to ever being wrong about anything, even the most smallest of mistakes.
Which is exactly why I seriously doubt he will ever give an answer to Snout's question of: "how many discordant couples in the [Padien] study had, as [Bill said], "6 years of condomless sex".
ReplyDeleteHey Puddles! It's Padian, not Padien.
Man, those Germans whipped Argentine's butt this morning. I love that World Cup stuff.
I think Padian wrote that 25% practiced "unsafe sex" for 6 years i.e., about 47 couples. Haven't you boys read the paper?
It ain't so hard to find -- I think you can even download the whole thing:
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/146/4/350.
There's a chart found in Table 1 on page 353 --it says 54% were using condoms at the beginning, then 79% by the end -- so that means 46% to 21% were not acting very responsible!. I quote:
"The proportion of couples who would use condoms if the study were continued beyond 10 years remains unknown. Nevertheless, the absence of
seroincident infection over the course of the study cannot be entirely attributed to significant behavior change. No transmission occurred among the 25 percent of couples who did not use condoms consistently at their last follow-up nor among the 47 couples who
intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up."
I actually think condoms are a good thing (I'm not one of these right-wing religious nuts, thank you very much) -- but clearly wearing them or not wearing them has no effect on transmission of HIV. Unless, Dr. Pad botched up her own data.
But, as Seth says, "I'm a victim!" So, my shrink sez not to hang out too often with you yokels. It's bad for my complexion. Also, Spain plays soon. Viva Futbol!!!!!!
Actually Bill
ReplyDeleteYou sound like a retard.
"Hey Puddles! It's Padian, not Padien."
ReplyDeleteGoodness, you caught a typo! Good job. Too bad you're win-streak stops there.
"No transmission occurred among the 25 percent of couples who did not use condoms consistently at their last follow-up nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up."
First, "intermittently" does not = "Not at all". Secondly, where do you read that these 47 couples were observed the full 6 years? Padian (correctly spelled mind you) specifically says regarding those 47: "Forty-seven couples who remained in follow-up for 3 months to 6 years (note not "all for 6 years) used condoms intermittently (Note not "6 years condomless sex), and no seroconversions occurred among exposed partners."
So again, Bill how many couples in the Padian study had "6 years of condomless sex'? The correct answer isn't 47, so how many is it?
Still, Bill, one study does not prove any one thing. How about speaking to the other hundreds of papers that cumulatively prove that HIV is indeed heterosexually transmitted? Just sayin'!
ReplyDeleteJTD
Hey Puddles!
ReplyDeleteYour narrow question is stupid. It's like asking Michael Jordan, "but tell me exactly how many of your jumpshots were precise swishes" (that's a basketball reference, by the way).
The proper question is, Why did NONE of Padian's subjects (176) contract HIV when they were having sex with HIV+ people numerous times between 1990 - 1996?
Well Bill
ReplyDeleteHere we go again.
You are perseverating on the Padian Rant, again.
Last time you did this was back in January.
I then asked you to please read the article by Boily et al. in Lancet that examines a couple decades of research on HIV transmission. You have failed to do so and here you are again ranting on my friend Nancy Padian, once again.
So goodbye Bill. You are banned again. Go read Boily et al. and prove to us that you are not the retard Tina says you sound like. Although I am not sure, persevration is a core symptom of brain damage.
By the way, Bill, the article is available free of charge at Lancet's website...you just have to register and you can get the pdf. Registering does not, however, help you know how to read it.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(09)70021-0/fulltext#article_upsell
"Your narrow question is stupid. It's like asking Michael Jordan, "but tell me exactly how many of your jumpshots were precise swishes" (that's a basketball reference, by the way)."
ReplyDeleteMy "Narrow question", Bill, was meant to illustrate that you either have not read or have not understood the Padian paper. You yourself stated:
"I think Padian wrote that 25% practiced "unsafe sex" for 6 years i.e., about 47 couples. Haven't you boys read the paper?"
But the fact of the matter is that she did not state that. Again, you either misread or simply did NOT read the paper at all and simply relied on what your denialist sites told you. As Seth stated before (and countless others before him), a single study does not trump many others. But when you can't even understand the one single study and continually misquote it, well Bill, that's just sad.
Geeez Bill... can't you just do what all Denialists do and read the damn Abstract for Boily et al.? Then you can twist and turn the facts to retain your corrupt view of the world. Here, let me help you. This is the Abstract from the Boily article....
ReplyDelete"We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies of the risk of HIV-1 transmission per heterosexual contact. 43 publications comprising 25 different study populations were identified. Pooled female-to-male (0·04% per act [95% CI 0·01—0·14]) and male-to-female (0·08% per act [95% CI 0·06—0·11]) transmission estimates in high-income countries indicated a low risk of infection in the absence of antiretrovirals. Low-income country female-to-male (0·38% per act [95% CI 0·13—1·10]) and male-to-female (0·30% per act [95% CI 0·14—0·63]) estimates in the absence of commercial sex exposure (CSE) were higher. In meta-regression analysis, the infectivity across estimates in the absence of CSE was significantly associated with sex, setting, the interaction between setting and sex, and antenatal HIV prevalence. The pooled receptive anal intercourse estimate was much higher (1·7% per act [95% CI 0·3—8·9]). Estimates for the early and late phases of HIV infection were 9·2 (95% CI 4·5—18·8) and 7·3 (95% CI 4·5—11·9) times larger, respectively, than for the asymptomatic phase. After adjusting for CSE, presence or history of genital ulcers in either couple member increased per-act infectivity 5·3 (95% CI 1·4—19·5) times versus no sexually transmitted infection. Study estimates among non-circumcised men were at least twice those among circumcised men. Low-income country estimates were more heterogeneous than high-income country estimates, which indicates poorer study quality, greater heterogeneity of risk factors, or under-reporting of high-risk behaviour. Efforts are needed to better understand these differences and to quantify infectivity in low-income countries."
There are 43 papers reviewed... That is why I want you to read the article. It will help you get over the Padian Rant.
See Bill, real scientists look at all of the evidence. It is not science to pick and choose the evidence that keeps you in your bubble. It is certainly not science to repeatedly misquote and misuse sound science, like Nancy's research, to feed a narcissistic personality (Crowe/Duesberg/Bauer), paranoid delusions (Bialy/Rasnick), or psychological fragility (Maggiore/Stockely).
Snout should appreciate this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.science-and-aids.org/e/registration.html
"Free entrance for HIV-positives"
No, that's just a subterfuge.
ReplyDeleteThey've parked Mrs Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Dr Turner by the door, and you have to prove it to their satisfaction, otherwise you'll be charged full price.
Sorry, no freebies here.
I wanna go!!!!! Jesus, how I wanna go!!
ReplyDeleteThat looks like a blast! The only "crazies" missing are Farber and Baker!
How about if they pay to send HIV Positives?
I volunteer!
JTD
HIV / AIDS is one of the major health issues that the world faces today. Combating HIV / AIDS is one of the stated goals of Millenium Development Goals.
ReplyDeleteAlso
Globally more than 173 Million people stood up against poverty and other goals ( MDG's) in 2009, a Guinness World Record!
Let us break this record in 2010!
Be the voice for the millions of poor people living across India.
It is Time for You to STAND UP AGAINST POVERTY NOW!
Join us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/unmcampaignINDIA and check out the photo album section for the event pictures.
Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/unmcampaignIND
I would be interested to know how Karri Stokely is getting to Austria and how she is paying for food and lodging. Since she gladly admits to defrauding Social Security Disability, are the U.S. Taxpayers paying for her to trip?
ReplyDeleteJust wondering.
JTD
I've been unfairly banned again!
ReplyDeleteNever mind, Bill. You can come and play at my site if you like, so long as you put a bit more effort into staying on-topic. There's some new posts there you can discuss if you like, including David Rasnick's grasp of US AIDS epidemiology and what the hell is going on with Bauer and Ruggiero publishing their drivel in J. It. Anat. Embryol.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, the Padian Rant was done to death years ago on sites like Aetiology. I think the threads there are still open if you still want to flog the dry and pulverised bones of that particular dead horse, but most of us have moved on long since. No-one has posted on those topics for a few years, except the ubiquitous Turkish malware spambot (and no, I don't mean Sadun Kal).
You are trying to draw a conclusion from the prospective part of the study (that HIV cannot be heterosexually transmitted) that is not sufficiently supported by Padian's prospective data (which itself is only a small part of her overall study), and is refuted by multiple other studies, including prospective studies.
That was the point of getting you to look at Boily et al. Perseverating with the Padian Rant while refusing to look at the data which clearly refute your claim is - at best - trolling, and more probably suggests a type of cognitive deficit that is not amenable to fixing over the net.
I've been unbanned again!
ReplyDeleteMaybe, we should strike a compromise where I don't talk about Padian, but I am relieved of the duty to finish my long over due book report by Boily.
There are, indeed, many other important issues to tackle besides heterosexual transmission of the Human Gallo Virus. Since our sincere goal is to cure AIDS, reduce the stigma of HIV, and support those who are afflicted with the disease, this would represent a modest, but mature compromise. What say you?
Sorry Snot, no one can be bothered with your tiresome lottle blog. Sad that you have to tout here for business. How's your web ranking going?
ReplyDeleteFAIL
Ruggiero got a poster accepted at the International AIDS Conference:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aids2010.org/WebContent/File/PAG_for_download/Thursday_and_Friday.pdf
THPE001 Gc protein-derived macrophage activating factor (GcMAF) stimulates activation and proliferation of human circulating monocytes
M. Ruggiero1, S. Pacini1, N. Yamamoto2
1 Italy, 2United States
Jonathan Barnett seems to have his identity wrapped up in his "web ranking"!
ReplyDeleteSome of us have enough self esteem to not worry about such drivel.
JTD
Hey Snout -- the Gay Australian Nurse! Howzit going?
ReplyDeleteNever mind, Bill. You can come and play at my site if you like, so long as you put a bit more effort into staying on-topic.
Oh, do you have a blog, too? I will definitely check it out.
I am curious as to why all these young gay men snorted amyl nitrites in the 70s. It seems like a bad way to go about partying. But, I guess, snorting, inhaling, injecting (coke, crack, junk) is kinda the human condition. Life can be cruel to some folks.
JTD
ReplyDeleteHow do you check a website rating?
Never mind. I really do not care.
Bill
You are such a classic. You have no clue. I wonder what it is like to live in a world where there is no HIV? Where addiction is a foreign concept? Where an old fart who believes Nessies swim about Loch Ness is taken seriously? Where David Rasnick appears a human being and David Crowe seems sane?
Is ignorance bliss? I suppose so.
Bill, you cannot even read, much less understand, a rather simple review paper. My undergraduates can manage reading Boily et al.'s paper just fine. Why hasn't Crowe read it for you and given you some sound bites? You should peck at the red dot on his chin a little harder.
Now I regret sitting out of Vienna. Imagine, Ruggiero at his poster? Now that would be something to get a pic of for my blog.
Quick, call United. Its not too late.
Umm, Seth, why do you keep raising stuff on YOUR mind, but not on MY mind. Who cares about Loch Ness Monsters? Why do you keep mentioning Rasnick and Crowe and Ruggiero?
ReplyDeleteYour train of thought and interactions with normal human beings seems to be highly disjointed.
Addiction is not a "foreign concept" it is serious problem. Did I say otherwise?
Amyl nitrites are bad for one's health. Why is that so hard to accept.
http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html
ReplyDelete"Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge critical and challenging information from the presidential AIDS advisory panel of South African president Thabo Mbeki, especially those who joined us in publishing a rebuttal to the Durban
declaration (Stewart et al 2000). Harry Haverkos (CDC/ FDA, Rockville, MD), Phil Johnson (UC Berkeley), Roland Scholz (Institut fuer Physiologische Chemie, University of Muenchen, Germany), David Steele (Attorney, San Francisco), and Rudi Werner (University of Miami, School of Medicine) are acknowledged for providing critical comments and specific information. We also appreciate expert technical assistance in preparing the manuscript from Sigrid Duesberg, and the figures from Ruhong Li (UC Berkeley). We thank philanthropists Michael S Kennedy (Panama City, FL), Christopher Morrill (San Anselmo, CA), Robert Leppo (San Francisco, CA), an American foundation that prefers to be anonymous, the Abraham J and Phyllis Katz Foundation (New York), and other private sources for support."
Were you the lawyer that wrote to Berkeley on Duesberg's behalf Bill? Can you share a copy of the letter?
Amyl nitrites are bad for one's health. Why is that so hard to accept.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not they are "bad for one's health", they do not cause AIDS. Smoking is bad for one's health, but doesn't cause AIDS. Eating too much junk food is bad for one's health, but again, doesn't cause AIDS. Using heroin is bad for your health, but unless you inject HIV into your veins with your hit, it doesn't cause AIDS.
The fact they don't cause AIDS doesn't mean they don't pose any kind of health risk.
Prior to the mid 1990s you could have reasonably been suspicious of a causative role for nitrites in the development of KS in people with immunosuppression from HIV/AIDS based on what was known of the epidemiology at the time. They didn't cause that immunosuppression, but could have been a factor in one of the tumors that showed up in people suffering that immunodeficiency disease.
After the discovery of HHV8 and its role in KS, the apparent epidemiological relationship between nitrites and KS could be seen for what it is - a confounding variable rather than a risk factor independent of the other known major risk factors - HHV8 infection, immunosuppression especially from HIV/AIDS, and lesser factors such as gender and genetic heritage.
This has been well known for a decade and a half now. Why is that so hard for you to accept, Bill?
And don't you get tired of posting strawman arguments? Like trying to make out that recognising nitrites (or heroin or other illicit drugs) aren't the cause of AIDS is the same as claiming that they're harmless to health?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaposi%27s_sarcoma-associated_herpesvirus
Big ups to Nokwinda!
ReplyDeletePeople are so caught up in media hype. Uttering the words that they saw on Law & Order SVU. Like you pointed out there is a huge spectrum of the denialists and dissedents and to lump such complex views to prove a point is ridiculous. For you take the extremists and associate them with others not so extreme like those who simply point out the faultiness of the HIV testing who rely greatly on one's "medical history" for status results.
furthermore you even go as far as lumping those against global warming with aids denialists. Doesnt take a genius to point out that that part of your argument very fallible. In fact when it comes to global warming (man made caused global warming) there is tons of evidence backed by current scientists that oppose that idea.
Stop being bias asshole. Educate yourself. Read opposing sides of all subjects and then take a stance. Dont take a stance first and then gather up random information to support your bias...