UPDATE: More Russian coverage of Denialism as science. Amazingly, they have never heard of Peter Duesberg before.
AIDS - Knowledge and Dogma
Conditions for the Emergence and Decline of Scientific Theories
Congress, July 16/17 2010, Vienna, Austria
Final Program
Simultaneous translation into English and German is provided for all
presentations.
Lunch and coffee breaks are provided for all participants.
Download the actual Congress Program as PDF
Friday, July 16th
09:00 Registration
09:30 - 10:15 Uta Santos-König
"Immaculate conception or maculate perception - A view of science
through Ludwik Fleck’s spectacles"
Abstract
10:20 - 11:05 Neville Hodgkinson
"HIV/AIDS and Goethe´s Faust: a pact with the devil?"
Abstract
11:05 - 11:30 Coffee-break
11:30 - 12:15 Claus Köhnlein
"HIV/AIDS therapy - where are the facts?"
Abstract
12:20 - 13:05 Christian Fiala
"The epidemic that never happened - not even in africa"
Abstract
13:05 - 14:30 Lunch
14:30 - 15:15 Juliane Sacher and Patients
"HIV/AIDS - new therapeutic concepts according to latest immunological research"
Abstract
15:20 - 16:05 Harry van der Zee
"AIDS und homoepathy in afrika"
Abstract
16:05 - 16:30 Coffee-break
16:30 - 17:15 Joan Shenton
"AIDS - Exposing the myths - a video history"
Abstract
17:30 - 19:00 Film 'House of Numbers',
followed by discussion with some of the persons appearing in the film
20:00 Concert with "Blaumarot"
Saturday, July 17th
09:00 Registration
09:30 - 10:15 Henry Bauer
"Hindrances to scientific progress and the failings of HIV/AIDS theory"
Abstract
10:20 - 11:05 Peter Duesberg
African population doubled from 400 to 800 millions during the HIV-AIDS era
Abstract
11:05 - 11:30 Coffee-break
11:30 - 12:15 Etienne de Harven
"AIDS research significantly confused by Human Endogenous Retroviruses (HERVs)"
Abstract
12:20 - 13:05 Marco Ruggiero
"Religion, politics & AIDS in Italy"
Abstract
13:05 - 14:30 Lunch
14:30 - 15:15 John Lauritsen
'The "AIDS" Hoax and Gay Men'
Abstract
15:20 - 16:05 Karri Stokely, Lindsey Nagel and other survivors of the
AZT/Aids-Therapy
"How I fell victim to the AIDS machine"
Abstract
16:05 - 16:30 Coffee-break
16:30 - 17:15 Nancy Banks
"AIDS, Opium, Diamonds and Empire"
Abstract
17:00 Christian Fiala
Summary and Outlook
17:35 - 18:25 Film: 'Aids - Die grossen Zweifel'
18:10 Round table
Its not a spoof ?! I really thought it was until I found the site you linked to exists. Tell me its a spoof? Please!
ReplyDeleteI think we should take them a large consignment of tinned SPAM./ It might help their deliberations. Perhaps SPAM causes AIDS ?
I still wanna know if Stokely's trip is being paid for by the U.S. Tax payers...since her only source of income is defrauding the Social Security Disability Insurance Program.
ReplyDeleteJTD
Is it a spoof?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately it's not, but I know from experience it can be hard to tell.
I thought Marco Ruggiero was a spoof at first, and that his now-withdrawn Med Hype paper was a parody intended to highlight the bizarre thought processes and shoddy reasoning involved in the denialist epidemiology of Duesberg and his followers.
But apparently he really believes the stuff he's been saying.
There's a phenomenon in discussions between creationists and biologists called Poe's Law, which highlights that" it is hard to tell parodies of fundamentalism (or, more generally, any crackpot theory) from the real thing, since they both seem equally insane".
This is especially true over the internet, because many of the real life social cues that would allow you to twig that someone's pulling your leg can be missing.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law
I am guessing u r a doctor.Follow me on my blog. Tanx. I always wanted to be an Author. You can give me adviceS if u join my blog.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Those zany German scientists -- Einstein, Koch, Planck, etc, etc!
ReplyDeleteI thought the venerable Inspector Clark Baker would have a keynote at such a hallowed presentation...
ReplyDeleteSorry to disappoint Clark. He wanted to go. His 'friend' Karri is gonna be there. So sad. But Mr. Leppo is facing some hard financial times. His movie ventures have flopped and the cure for cancer just does not seem to be coming from his lab. Not to mention is needing to keep is attorney restrained, I retained.
ReplyDeleteMaybe next time
Some footage of packed conference here, better watched with the sound off to avoid the pain of listening to Joan Shenton's shameful drivel.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buoGGsch5mM
JTD,
ReplyDeleteDenouncing Kerri for fraud online and not to the authorities makes you look very very weak. Why don't you denounce Kerri to the authorities since you have the proof?
NM
ReplyDeleteNo surprises as far as I am concerned. The Russians have denied AIDS for years. I visited the place several times in the 90's working on HIV prevention efforts. They obviously had an emerging injection drug use HIV epidemic that the government ignored. They had statewide homophobia that that kept anything from happening for gay men. And they were treated people with monotherapy AZT when everyone knew it was dangerous. -- yes that is right, monotherapy AZT is bad, AZT in combination therapy is good.
I am glad the Deniers are having fun in Vienna. They will be ignored by all but us and those who want to here their drivel. Sadly, that includes the Russian media.
I do not report Karri Stokely nor Jonathan Barnett to the authorities because I am not a hypocrite. I will not meddle in other people's lives. Their shameful, despicable behavior is their actions/decision/responsibility and they must live with themselves and the consequences of their actions. It is not up to me to put those consequences in motion.
ReplyDeleteJTD
The esteemed Professor writes:
ReplyDelete.."yes that is right, monotherapy AZT is bad, AZT in combination therapy is good."
How does something "bad" magically transform into something "good" just by adding new stuff to it?
It's like someone who drinks whiskey daily for 10 years, slowly wrecking his liver, and then you suggest that he drink whiskey and soda. Better? Yes. But still bad.
Hey Toad -- you are a hypocrtie. You slander people with AIDS, just because they disagree with you.
Bill
ReplyDeleteI can only pray that you are not HIV positive. At least then your ignorance wont kill you. But if you are HIV positive, it is remarkable how little you understand about HIV and HIV treatments. My 10 year old nephew understands combination therapies. You cannot even get that far.
Sad.
Just incredibly sad.
Seth said:
ReplyDeleteAnd they were treated people with monotherapy AZT when everyone knew it was dangerous. -- yes that is right, monotherapy AZT is bad, AZT in combination therapy is good.
Bill said:
How does something "bad" magically transform into something "good" just by adding new stuff to it?
Seth, I think you have been reading too much denialist rubbish. AZT monotherapy isn't "dangerous" - the problem with it is that it becomes ineffective over the longer term due to viral resistance. Once this happens (typically after 6-12 months in people with late stage disease, and perhaps after a couple of years if it is started early) you are left with AZT-resistant virus and a drug which is having little or no benefit, and which can only cause side effects.
Once this happens, the risk-benefit equation reverses.
In the earliest years 1987-91 high doses of AZT monotherapy were often used - up to 1500 mg per day, but more commonly 1000 to 1200 mg per day. The rationale was that by having a high daily dosage and also spreading it over multiple doses per day, then viral resistance could be staved off for longer.
These higher doses came with the risk of significant side effects - principally anemia, sometimes neutropenia, gastrointestinal upset and myopathy. Denialists deliberately confuse these side effect with the disease process of AIDS - in particular they conflate neutropenia (a low number of a particular type of blood cell) with the progressive depletion of CD4+ lymphocytes (a completely different kind of white blood cell).
They exploit this confusion to argue that AZT caused AIDS - even though until 1990 AZT was only approved to treat people after they had been diagnosed with AIDS/ARC.
Duesberg was the main proponent of this lie, and his favorite "case study" was Kimberley Bergalis. He claimed that Bergalis had never been ill with anything out of the ordinary until she started AZT. In fact she had systemic candidiasis, PCP, a CD4 count of 41, together with wasting and hair loss before she was even tested for HIV, let alone commenced on AZT.
Duesberg flat-out lied.
Unlike the progression of HIV/AIDS disease, the side effects of high dose AZT monotherapy are reversible with dose reductions or cessation of the drug. Physicians prescribing these high doses were well aware of this, and monitored their patients, adjusting the doses accordingly.
During the late 1980s and 1990-1 dose-response studies of AZT monotherapy were conducted. They found that there was no advantage of high dose AZT versus doses of 500-600 mg per day in reducing viral resistance, and significantly fewer side effects. By 1992 this was the standard dose of AZT, and has remained so ever since, whether used as monotherapy or in combinations.
Denialists try to claim that the dramatic fall in AIDS deaths that occurred from 1996 in the US and other countries coincident with the introduction of HAART was due to a reduction in AZT dose then.
That is rubbish. High dose AZT was over by 1992. This made no difference to death numbers, which continued to climb until the introduction of HAART - which included exactly the same doses of AZT as were used in monotherapy from 1992-5.
HAART works better over the long term than AZT alone because multiple drug combinations that target different points in viral metabolism postpone the development of resistance. There's nothing magical about that - it's been the basic principle of treatment for conditions like tuberculosis for decades. The problem was that until the development of the first protease inhibitors, saquinavir and ritonavir, and the first NNRTI nevirapine, there were no such compatible multidrug antiretroviral combinations.
Thanks Snout, I knew that your instincts to state the facts would kick in. 'Dangerous' was probably the wrong word to descrive AZT monotherapy. Ineffective in the longer term is probably the right word. You are also right about my having read too much of the denialist trash. I thought I was out of it long enough now, but apparently not.
ReplyDeleteThanks again.
AZT at high doses caused some remarkable recoveries in people with severe dementia, an outcome that was extremely meaningful for them and their loved ones. All the people I knew who went on AZT and felt like it was making them ill stopped taking it.
ReplyDeleteHere is some video of Marco Ruggiero, preparing to deliver is poster at the International AIDS Conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4eMkdYhaZE
Seth:
ReplyDelete"And they were treated people with monotherapy AZT when everyone knew it was dangerous. -- yes that is right, monotherapy AZT is bad, AZT in combination therapy is good."
Dog:
Seth, I think you have been reading too much denialist rubbish. AZT monotherapy isn't "dangerous"
Seth
"Thanks Snout, I knew that your instincts to state the facts would kick in. 'Dangerous' was probably the wrong word to descrive AZT monotherapy."
priceless...
Bill, you are an idiot and a liar and you are the hypocrite for slandering me in that sentence. See how I did that, Bill? I called you some names, but I backed them up with proof. I have never slandered anyone "because the disagree with me." How about providing proof when you all out libel and slander someone?
ReplyDeleteI have also never slandered anyone, PERIOD. I have provided proof for everything I write. EVERYTHING!
JTD
I just heard that some study in South Africa showed that if you put an HIV med in a douche it can protect women from HIV. Finally, Clark Baker has his calling. If there was ever a douche that should be used for HIV prevention it would be Clark!
ReplyDeleteI find this blog and the comments herein distasteful and unprofessional. It is remarkable to me that it is run by a Professor, who instead of discussing with compassion and intelligence the complexities of AIDS science, seeks to demonize opponents as "Denialists."
ReplyDeleteMost responsible adults, let alone responsible scientists, do not act like this. As a PI in several important studies, it is clear to me that the highly specialized field of AIDS has morphed ove time into a small niche of mediocre scientists and activists seeking to sustain and replenish as much government money as possible.
Indeed, it is very sad. But, we are catching on.
You are just catching on now John? Most people have known since the beginning of the HIV equals AIDS trollop that the likes of Kalichman and his cohorts TweedleDee and TweedleDum A.K.A. Snout and JTD have been bad mouthing anyone with an alternative view with some weird sadistic kind of enjoyment.
ReplyDeleteJohn
ReplyDeleteThanks for visiting my blog.
I appreciate your comment.
You should learn a little more about the AIDS Denialists before you conclude that they are being 'demonized' with a label. They are,in fact,denialists -- using the formal definition of the term. Yes, just like Holocaust Denialists.
Check out some other websites listed to the right. I suggest the Denialist Blog and AIDSTruth for starters. JTD and Snout have blogs, but I think you need to have background on the problem to understand what they are doing. Same is true here. Best thing you can do is check the Deniers out for yourself, again to the right are lots links.
Best regards,
Seth
"I will not meddle in other people's lives."
ReplyDeletethey are stealing your tax dollars JTD
Seth,
ReplyDeleteI prefer free scientific inquiry, not blogs by anonymous people named "JTD" and "Snout". Have they published their work in peer-reviewed journals? Have they tested their own hypotheses?
In science, it is a good thing to challenge ideas. If adults choose not to take ARV's, that is their prerogative. I care about data and ideas, not calling people "Denialists" which is sophmoric and juvenile.
I don't want to check out the "Deniers," for the same reason I don't want to be on the same side as the "McCarthy-ites".
I would rather discuss and debate data and ideas, and sadly that is a rare commodity in the field of AIDS.
Here is an example of a notable Professor addressing Duesberg's scientific claims about in the context of the AIDS-Industrial Complex:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/07/19/the-aids-industrial-complex/
This is how it should be done.
I prefer free scientific inquiry, not blogs by anonymous people named "JTD" and "Snout".
ReplyDeleteWell, I enjoy both, sometimes at the same time. Each to his own, I suppose.
In science, it is a good thing to challenge ideas.
Sure is. But it seems you have a problem with our challenging what is a very destructive set of ideas.
If adults choose not to take ARV's, that is their prerogative.
Fully agree, and I don't think anyone here has ever said otherwise. But people do not have the automatic right to propagate misleading and lethally negligent medical advice without challenge. And when this is being done in a semi-organised fashion, then it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the history, psychology and sociology of the phenomenon.
This is a blog on the internet, not a formal scientific meeting. Its style reflects this. If you don't like that, click on something else.
I care about data and ideas, not calling people "Denialists" which is sophmoric and juvenile.
Whether you like the word or not, "denialism" describes quite a specific, important and (I think) quite interesting social phenomenon. Seth is psychology professor with an interest in public health psychology, and this blog reflects an aspect of that field, HIV/AIDS denialism. It is not primarily about the science of HIV/AIDS - that's a completely different field of study.
I would rather discuss and debate data and ideas, and sadly that is a rare commodity in the field of AIDS.
Well, this blog does discuss ideas. It sometimes even discusses ideas in the basic science of HIV/AIDS, although that's not its primary purpose.
So far, the closest you have come to discussing any "ideas" you here is to whine about how this blog is not to your personal taste and to complain about the supposed mediocrity of HIV/AIDS scientists, while informing us all that you are a "PI in several important studies".
We get a lot of trolls here.
Here is an example of a notable Professor addressing Duesberg's scientific claims about in the context of the AIDS-Industrial Complex:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/07/19/the-aids-industrial-complex/
No, actually Malcolm Potts doesn't "address" Duesberg's actual scientific claims at all. He simply says that they're wrong, but that he still likes the guy on a personal level.
He also misses the point about why Duesberg's self-publicising activities have lost him the respect of real scientists. It's not because he's wrong (scientists are wrong all the time) or even because he's utterly incompetent in fields in which he promotes himself as some kind of expert.
It's because he blatantly lies and manipulates, and this has been the cause of serious harm to many people.
I gave an example earlier in this thread.