tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post344079719621438459..comments2024-02-25T14:29:44.021-05:00Comments on Denying AIDS and other oddities: How the growth of denialism undermines public healthSeth Kalichmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01715826946361587097noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-45443098429074554262011-01-07T20:06:04.084-05:002011-01-07T20:06:04.084-05:00notElon, it may be more than is generally assumed,...notElon, it may be more than is generally assumed, most people who embrace AIDS denial do so quietly and when they are harmed nobody records it. Perhaps the AMA should be encouraged to survey their doctors about the extent to which they've encountered AIDS denial in their practices.<br /><br />Check out the comment here:<br /><br />http://resistanceisfruitful.com/blog/2011/01/05/iv-vitamin-c-action-alert-needs-to-be-substantiated/<br /><br />January 6, 2011 at 2:02 pm<br /><br />Housexy says:<br />A friend of mine had IV Vit C (4 lots) and I opted for IV Glutathione ( 5ml once week for 6 weeks) My research indicates the two should not be combined. We both reckon wellbeing is vastly improved, altho his labs show basically the same numbers ( cd4 11) Whereas my cd4s jumped from 50s to 104. Many say numbers bounce around and are meaningless, but I have found mine are very consistant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-66973938556715688132011-01-07T16:18:43.677-05:002011-01-07T16:18:43.677-05:00Luke - this year you'll need to add Karri Stok...Luke - this year you'll need to add Karri Stokely to the list.Kralc Rekabhttp://google.com/profiles/clarkwarrenbakernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-17719602317283911352011-01-07T07:26:59.443-05:002011-01-07T07:26:59.443-05:00I forgot about Kim Bannon. And Lambros Papantoniou...I forgot about Kim Bannon. And Lambros Papantoniou. Oh, and Jerry Colinard, Boyd Ed Graves, John Kirkham and a score of other prominent denialists who are, unfortunately, no longer with us.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16126035606991777869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-20696659559059622292011-01-07T07:22:36.102-05:002011-01-07T07:22:36.102-05:00Pete:
You asked if the death of Christine Maggoir...Pete:<br /><br />You asked if the death of Christine Maggoire had any detrimental effect on the denialist movement. The answer is no, because she obviously didn't die of AIDS. How can one die of an imaginary ailment? She instead died from stress, possibly caused by a TV show or the tragic and totally unpreventable death of her daughter. Or maybe she died of plain old pneumonia, unrelated to AIDS. Or maybe she caved under the pressure of the evil orthodoxy and started taking toxic AIDS medication which ultimately lead to her death.<br /><br />It's hard to believe, but these are just some of the explanations denialists bandy among themselves to account for the death of their poster girl. How else could such a vibrant, healthy woman deteriorate over such a short period? Not AIDS, obviously. Never that.<br /><br />The most damning proof that Christine Maggoire's death did not affect the denialist movement is that they've picked up yet another poster child. Karri Stokely is one of the latest held up as an example of the great AIDS conspiracy: supposedly HIV+ and yet in great health. Except, of course, she isn't. Check out this blog's article on her from a couple of months ago: http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-aids-denialism-can-kill-you-part-v.html.<br /><br />Ultimately we come back to the heart of the issue: denial. Once you've insulated yourself against the truth to such an extent as to deny the existence of AIDS then I imagine it's relatively easy to justify something small like one individual's death. People die all the time, of thousands of ailments. Far easier to blame one woman's death on something unrelated than to admit you were wrong. Christine Maggoire's death was explained away and forgotten just as Karri Stokely's untimely and preventable death will be soon.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16126035606991777869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-80771467485655612222011-01-06T22:52:36.149-05:002011-01-06T22:52:36.149-05:00Hi notElon
Thanks for commenting. It is hard to kn...Hi notElon<br />Thanks for commenting. It is hard to know just how many people listen to AIDS Deniers. Having followed this for a few years now, inside and out, it is pretty clear to me that a small number of people pay any attention to them. But there have a following, and it is seems to be growing. <br /><br />Most people recognize them for what they are...quacks, frauds, pseudoscientists, etc. Those who are duped by denialists are unable to cope with an HIV diagnosis - their own or someone they love. It is a mental health problem for sure. My view is that just one person who falls for their fraudulent claims is too many. That is why I have this blog. It is also why I wrote my book. <br />Thanks again for commenting!<br />SethSeth Kalichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01715826946361587097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-23998598870188194872011-01-06T13:22:45.952-05:002011-01-06T13:22:45.952-05:00I wrote a satirical article on AIDS denial, 4 year...I wrote a satirical article on AIDS denial, 4 years back when I was a naive, young chem undergrad who could not understand how you could deny the existence of a disease in an era where we can take actual photographs of it in action. Between then and now, there have been huge and amazing advances in HIV research, but you would not know it if you talked to the average AIDS denier. They are still stuck in the 1980s. It's always "AZT", "Montagnier admits his proof isn't ironclad," "Gallo is a Liar," "Gay Men". The biggest proof against them is that the world moved on, and they are still ranting in the past.<br /><br />The only question is whether people are still listening. I think the biggest difference is that South Africa is no longer listening to them, now that Mbeki is out of power. That was the one country where they really held sway. I can't judge as to the number of private citizens who still listen to them.notElonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04857651031212875523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-89499003031276132882010-12-31T13:23:35.190-05:002010-12-31T13:23:35.190-05:00It has been a couple years since Christine Maggior...It has been a couple years since Christine Maggiore died of AIDS. Has this had any impact on their movement? It looks like the quacks and frauds don't stop, but it also looks like the AIDS Denialism movement is quieter. I am wondering what you and your readers think?<br /><br />Also, you had mentioned that AIDS Denialism is part of a mental illness.. or will be. Is there an update on this?<br /><br />ThanksPetenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-48420230245934699192010-12-21T16:43:02.466-05:002010-12-21T16:43:02.466-05:00Snouts great wisdom, another cut and paste job str...Snouts great wisdom, another cut and paste job straight from $eth no less. Still it's par for the course as everything he posts is cut and paste job, usually from AIDSTRUTH.<br /><br />And luke said it best when he called it a "Cause". Like all fundamentalists you view yourselves on a mission. And like all fundamentalists you don't let the truth get in the way of your version of events.<br /><br />You've twisted the rules of biology much like zealots twist the Koran on ideological grounds.<br /><br />Medical Terrorists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-77750774755129543012010-12-21T01:01:28.671-05:002010-12-21T01:01:28.671-05:00The basic unit of propagation of denialism is the ...The basic unit of propagation of denialism is the argumentoid. Argumentoids, are units of rhetoric that – like other memes - readily propagate from mind to mind, particularly over the internet, but also via other media and by direct personal contact.<br /><br />They are almost impossible to eradicate, but improving education may help to increase resistance to denialist argumentoids improving people's critical ability to distinguish fact from rhetoric. This is particularly important for journalists, who can easily become the unwitting vectors of denialist argumentoids if they fail to recognize their essentially empty rhetorical nature, or if they place misguided importance on “seeing every side” or on “controversy” for its own sake.<br /><br />Arguing with denialists is tedious and rarely of any benefit except to the uncommitted bystander, because denialists are not honest brokers in debate, and often have astounding stamina backed by a vast store of argumentoids accumulated on denialist websites over many years. As with other pseudoscientists, “debate” is seen merely as an opportunity to recycle these already discredited canards to new audiences. The copy-paste functions make this easy on the internet, and it usually takes many times more effort to refute a lie than to tell it in the first place.<br /><br />Fast-spreading denialist argumentoids are often posed as hanging questions - often including an <i>unstated</i> false premise - and subtly invite the recipient to fill in the gaps. For this reason they are most effectively transmitted to people with a low baseline knowledge of the relevant science and a tendency to drawing simplistic or black and white conclusions. The Dunning Kruger effect is important here.<br /><br />The film <i>House of Numbers</i>, for example, is almost entirely structured in this way.<br /><br />Based on the Hoofnagles’ excellent 2007 article on denialism blog and on other experience, a basic taxonomy of denialist argumentoids and other rhetorical strategies is as follows:<br /><br />1. Simple blatant falsehoods<br /> 1.1 Historical lies<br /> 1.2 Demonstrably false “facts”<br /> 1.3 Basic scientific and mathematical howlers<br /> 1.4 Misrepresentations of key literature/data<br /><br />2. Logical fallacies<br /> 2.1 Strawman<br /> 2.2 Excluded middle<br /> 2.3 Inappropriate analogy<br /> 2.4 Red herrings<br /> 2.5 False inference<br /> 2.6 Over generalisation<br /> 2.7 Misuse of “ad hominem”<br /> 2.8 Semantic confusion<br /><br />3. Selectivity<br /> 3.1 Cherry picking outlier data<br /> 3.2 Use of flawed papers<br /> 3.3 Cherry picking rough estimates with large ranges of error<br /> 3.4 Rehashing outdated or discredited hypotheses<br /> 3.5 Quote mining<br /> 3.6 Unverifiable personal anecdote<br /><br />4. Setting an impossible or impracticable standard in “debate”<br /> 4.1 Demanding 100% certainty<br /> 4.2 Rejecting weight of evidence while demanding absolute “proof”<br /> 4.3 Demanding non-existent data<br /> 4.4 Single study fallacy<br /> 4.5 Moving goalposts<br /> 4.6 Gish gallop<br /> 4.7 Death by copy-paste<br /><br />5. Manufacture of doubt<br /> 5.1 “Two sides to every question” fallacy<br /> 5.2 Slippaging a settled question into one with genuine controversy<br /> 5.3 Overstating range of genuine controversy<br /> 5.4 Passing off advocacy as “just asking questions”<br /> 5.5 Galileo gambit <br /><br />6. Promoting fake experts<br /> 6.1 with irrelevant credentials<br /> 6.2 with fake credentials<br /> 6.3 Manufacturing an illusion of peer regard<br /> 6.4 Pretending to be a substantial scientific group<br /> 6.5 Inventing non-existent "cast iron" scientific rules<br /> 6.6 Misrepresenting genuine experts<br /><br />7. Conspiracy and dog whistling<br /> 7.1 Us versus them – appeal to social affiliation<br /> 7.2 Claiming personal persecution<br /> 7.3 Claiming that work is “suppressed” rather than poor quality<br /> 7.4 Blurring with genuine social and political injustice: racism, sexism, homophobia, etc<br /> 7.5 Appeal to unrealistic ideals of entitlement<br /> 7.6 Appeal to ignorance – “knowledge monopolies”<br /><br />Perhaps readers might like to add to the list.Snouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-48754086525462478662010-12-20T09:10:32.278-05:002010-12-20T09:10:32.278-05:00Seth the clown!Seth the clown!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-9662747491443750692010-12-20T03:01:42.261-05:002010-12-20T03:01:42.261-05:00I really enjoyed the Yale speech. To Seth, to JTD,...I really enjoyed the Yale speech. To Seth, to JTD, to Snout and the other sane commentators: keep fighting the good fight, fellas. <br /><br />World AIDS days is a great day to sit back and evaluate your contribution to cause. It's easy to get tired of the endless rebuttals met with shifting goalposts and cherry-picked arguments. But think, for every post you've made that's one more item for people searching for genuine AIDS advice to read. One more protest against the needless and senseless waste of life the denialists propagate.<br /><br />Keep it up, fellas.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16126035606991777869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-34544145607311064522010-12-18T17:38:02.513-05:002010-12-18T17:38:02.513-05:00Santa Claus
Easter Bunny
Diet Dr. Pepper
HIV/AIDS....Santa Claus<br />Easter Bunny<br />Diet Dr. Pepper<br />HIV/AIDS...<br />They're all the same, unless you're sane.<br />JTDjtdeshonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881997315363701292noreply@blogger.com