A controversial research paper that argued “there is as yet no proof that HIV causes AIDS" and met with a storm of protest when it was published in 2009, leading to its withdrawal, has been republished in a revised form, this time in the peer-reviewed literature.

The reworked version of the paper, led by Peter Duesberg of the University of California, Berkeley, who is well known for denying the link between HIV and AIDS, was published in the Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology (IJAE) last month.

The manuscript was examined by two peer reviewers, one of them the journal's editor-in-chief, Paolo Romagnoli, an expert in cell anatomy at the University of Florence, Italy. But leading AIDS researchers and campaigners question how the paper could have passed peer review, and say that publishing it in a minor journal known to few does not give it scientific credibility or legitimacy.

"In my view this paper is scientific nonsense and should not have passed peer review. The thesis that HIV does not cause AIDS has no scientific credibility," says Nathan Geffen of the South Africa-based Treatment Action Campaign, who previously raised concerns about the article.

Romagnoli says he decided to review the revised paper because the original was withdrawn by Medical Hypotheses not for “flawed or falsified data” but for “highly controversial opinions” — which the IJAE's readers can make up their own minds about.

“Speculative conclusions are not a reason for rejection, provided they are correlated with the data presented,” he says.
Potentially damaging

The paper's initial publication in Medical Hypotheses caused a furore, with attention being drawn to the fact that the journal was not peer reviewed despite being listed in the MEDLINE citation database.

Retrospective peer review later led to the paper's permanent withdrawal from Medical Hypotheses. The grounds stipulated in the withdrawal notice were concerns over the paper's quality and that it contained opinions about the causes of AIDS “that could potentially be damaging to global public health.

The journal's publisher, Elsevier, revamped Medical Hypotheses to introduce peer review and fired editor Bruce Charlton, who resisted the changes. The University of California also bought charges of misconduct against Duesberg over the article's publication, but he was later cleared.

Duesberg says that the revised publication is a “new victory in our long quest for a scientific theory of AIDS”, adding that the new version of the paper was better documented and more up to date.

Although the revised version has been toned down, the article still makes many of the same points as the original — refuting the effectiveness of anti-retroviral drugs, as well as death-toll estimates from HIV and AIDS in South Africa put forward in a study led by AIDS epidemiologist Max Essex of Harvard University in Boston, Massachusetts3. “We deduce ... that HIV is not a new killer virus,” Duesberg et al. write, proposing a “reevaluation of the HIV–AIDS hypothesis”.

But Geffen says the paper "contains no new arguments or evidence about the South African data, and these arguments have been rebutted before".

Duesberg admits submitting the revised paper to more than four other journals before it was accepted by theIJAE, and only alerted his co-authors to the publication after he was sure it wouldn't be aborted at the last minute.
Dangerous distraction

"It is just so far out that it is hard to respond in an intelligent way," says Essex, adding that it is "unfortunate" to see Duesberg continuing on a "dangerous track of distraction that has persuaded some people to avoid treatment or prevention of HIV infection".

Yet whether the publication will be officially challenged remains to be seen. John Moore, an HIV researcher at Cornell University in New York, who lodged a complaint with Elsevier when the original paper was published, believes that the movement to deny the link between HIV and AIDS is on its “last legs”. Geffen, meanwhile, thinks the likelihood the paper will have significant impact — and therefore warrant challenge — is small.

“Duesberg's views no longer have significant political support, like they did in South Africa in the 2000s,” Geffen says. ”No one of consequence in government is likely to take any notice.”

Accountability for Reckless Abuse of Academic Credentials by AIDS Deniers

Unconventional thinkers or recklessly dangerous minds?

By Jon Cartwright

6 May 2010

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

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

One Nation Under God with Liberty and Stupidity for All

Despite what AIDS Denialists may say, AIDS Denialism has political ties. The reality is that Peter Duesberg attracts  champions of free speech and anti-censorship. That is because the folklore of Peter Duesberg centers on his being censored by science and defunded by the federal government, neither of which is true. Still, he has successfully cultivated the sympathies of the anti-government crowd. 


Those of us who follow AIDS Denialism are well aware of the connection between AIDS deniers and Libertarianism.  Former college math teacher Rebecca Culshaw came to us through the Lew Rockwell anti-government, anti-war, pro-capitalism website. Libertarian comedian Bill Maher (and by the way, I am a fan) came out in support of the late AIDS denier Christine Maggiore. Other AIDS Deniers like conservative columnist Tom Bethel and venture capitalist Robert Leppo also fall into the Libertarian camp. Of course there are the Clean Hands whistle blowing American Physicians and Surgeons people who publish AIDS deniers in their sham journal. Then you have David Rasnick who fears the NIH, CIA, FBI, DHS, IRS etc. to the point where he lives in exile in the Bahamas. There are several other examples from less known (and less significant) AIDS denier bloggers.

So it did not surprise me to see AIDS Denialists crawl out of the woodwork on former Libertarian Presidential Candidate and US Congressman Ron Paul’s website. It is an amusing read, with connections between Chinese viruses, Peter Duesberg, and natural cures.

New Aids like easily transmissible disease in China

Submitted by runforron on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 18:24

A new infectious disease is spreading in large areas of Mainland China. Symptoms are similar to AIDS but it spreads faster between family members, even via bodily fluids like saliva.

Peter Duesberg and the AIDS Genocide in South Africa

  















Research now confirms that the AIDS denialist policies of former South African President Thabo Mbeki contributed to the senseless death of hundreds of thousands of people. It is also well known that Mbeki's AIDS denialist policies were underwritten by University of California biologist Peter Duesberg and his companion David Rasnick. As part of their ongoing propagation of AIDS denialism, Duesberg and Rasnick are trying to publish a paper that refutes the impact of Mbeki's refusal to expand HIV testing, prevention and treatment in South Africa. Their paper titled "HIV-AIDS Hypothesis Out of Touch with South African AIDS – A New perspective" was originally rejected from a legitimate scientific journal and then published in a non-peer reviewed outlet (Medical Hypotheses), only to be retracted. [see posts on August 8, September 9, and September 11].

Nevertheless, Duesberg's article lives on in cyberspace and Duesberg continues to seek its publication. It is important to show yet again that Peter Duesberg is wrong on HIV/AIDS. Below is an excerpt from a new article by Pride Chigwedere and Max Essex published in the journal AIDS and Behavior. 


DISCLOSURE ALERT: I am the Editor of AIDS and Behavior and this paper was peer-reviewed. The full article is available FREE  online. 

AIDS Denialism and Public Health Practice
By Pride Chigwedere and Max Essex
Published in AIDS and Behavior

We recently published a paper estimating the human cost of not using antiretroviral drugs in South Africa Questioning whether HIV causes AIDS and the safety of using antiretroviral drugs (ARVs), the South African government led by former president Thabo Mbeki withdrew government support from Gauteng clinics that had begun using zidovudine (ZDV or AZT) for preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV (PMTCT) in 1999, restricted the use of nevirapine donated free of charge by Boehringer Ingelheim in 2000, obstructed the acquisition of grants for AIDS treatment from the Global Fund in 2002, and generally delayed implementing a national ARV treatment program until 2004.

Peer Reviewing Peter Duesberg – REJECTED—RETRACTED—REJECTED Again

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

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

Magic Johnson Turns 50 and He Thanks HIV Treatments

Where were you November 7 1991?

I know precisely where I was.

My student Tricia Hunter and I had just finished collecting AIDS attitude and behavior surveys in the Chicago transit system. We had been conducting a behavioral surveillance study with a cross section of the city. That is, we were asking the good people of Chicago to fill out surveys as they waited for their train.

I came home that evening to find Magic Johnson on the news. Earvin Magic Johnson, arguably the most recognized face in professional basketball, announced his retirement after testing HIV+.

I was in Chicago. Michael Jordon’s Chicago. The Champion Chicago Bull’s Chicago.

Perhaps with the exception of LA, no city could have been more stunned by Magic’s announcement than Chicago.

Goodbye Duesberg's and Ruggiero's Articles! Did You Ever Exist?

Over the past couple of months two AIDS Denialism articles were published in a journal called Medical Hypotheses. These papers surprised many of us because Medical Hypotheses was once a peer-reviewed medical journal that is printed by the world’s largest science publisher Elsevier. But it did not take much to notice that these papers were not peer reviewed.

The article “Aids denialism at the ministry of health” by Marco Ruggiero (seen here at the gates of UC Berkeley) was received by Medical Hypotheses on June 3, 2009 and was accepted on June 3, 2009. Hmmm, now that was fast. And the article “HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS – A new perspective” by Peter H. Duesberg, Joshua M. Nicholson, David Rasnick, Christian Fiala, and Henry H. Bauer was received on June 9, 2009 and accepted on June 11, 2009. Obviously the Editor at least contemplated Duesberg’s article before accepting it. Just as obvious, neither paper underwent peer review.

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

Here is a real gem.

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

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

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

AIDS 'Denialists' Jeopardizing Treatment For Sufferers

By WILLIAM WEIR
April 29, 2009

For about two decades, it has been considered as fact that HIV causes AIDS, but there continue to be activists who say otherwise.

They've been brushed off too often as crackpots, says Seth Kalichman, who teaches social psychology at the University of Connecticut and is the editor of the journal AIDS and Behavior. As a result, those in the small but vocal minority have been able to push their views to a dangerous level. In his recently published book "Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience and Human Tragedy" (Copernicus Books, $25), Kalichman looks at the loose community that continues to question years of scientific research that points to the human immunodeficiency virus as the cause of AIDS. They often refer to themselves as "AIDS dissidents," but Kalichman and other critics use the more charged term of "AIDS denialists."
One of the things that has allowed the denialists to gain traction, he says, are the few among them who have genuine science credentials on their résumés

Among the first to question the prevailing wisdom about AIDS was Peter Duesberg, who teaches at the University of California, Berkeley. He was among the first to identify and map the cancer-causing gene, though he may now be better known for his controversial views on AIDS treatment. He has stated that lifestyle and the very drugs used to treat AIDS are the cause of the disease.

Earlier this decade, Duesberg's theories had spread to the government of South Africa, where former health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang rejected conventional medicine to treat AIDS patients in favor of a nutritional program that included garlic and beets. A Harvard study last year concluded that the AIDS policies of South Africa's then-president Thabo Mbeki resulted in the premature deaths of about 365,000 AIDS sufferers in the country.

At its peril, Kalichman says, the medical establishment has refused to engage the denialists in debate. "We have figured that if we ignore them, they will go away," he says.

But that strategy doesn't work in the Internet era. For instance, if you do a Google search for "cause of AIDS," the first entry is an essay supporting Duesberg's theory, from a website that bills itself as "rethinking AIDS."

"They've disrupted charity auctions," he says of the denialists. "It's a real threat, and it's all happening at a time when there is a lot of real excitement, and Obama has reignited awareness about AIDS."

As a result of the AIDS denialists' persistence, he says, many infected with the virus — especially those less educated — have refused conventional treatment. Regardless of what kind of reaction "Denying AIDS" gets among AIDS researchers, he says his main priority is getting the right information "to the people who should be most aware."

Kalichman is donating all of the book's royalties to the Family Treatment Fund administered by Massachusetts General Hospital and be used for antiretroviral medications for people with HIV/AIDS in Africa.

For comments at the Hartford Courant website click here.

"The Doctor will Sue You Now": Ben Goldacre's Missing Chapter on the Rath of AIDS Denialism

I have been reading Ben Goldacre’s great book Bad Science and I knew something was missing. Goldacre covers all of the wacky snake oil scams and schemes that plague health care today. From antitoxins to homeopathy, Bad Science seems has it covered. What’s missing is none other than the Rath of AIDS Denialism himself, German vitamin salesman Matthias Rath. You know, as in Rath and Rasnick, the guys who embarked on illegal ‘clinical trials’ to build a pseudoscience to boost vitamin sales in South Africa. Now, Goldacre explains why he omitted the Rath chapter and gives us all the essential missing material as a gift!! Enjoy!

From Ben Goldacre: This is the “missing chapter” about vitamin pill salesman Matthias Rath. Sadly I was unable to write about him at the time that book was initially published, as he was suing my ass in the High Court. The chapter is now available in the new paperback edition, and I’ve posted it here for free so that nobody loses out.

Although the publishers make a slightly melodramatic fuss about this in the promo material, it is a very serious story about the dangers of pseudoscience, as I hope you’ll see, and it was also a pretty unpleasant episode, not just for me, but also for the many other people he’s tried to sue, including Medecins Sans Frontieres and more. If you’re ever looking for a warning sign that you’re on the wrong side of an argument, suing Medecins Sans Frontieres is probably a pretty good clue.
This is an extract from BAD SCIENCE by Ben Goldacre Published by Harper Perennial 2009.
You are free to copy it, paste it, bake it, reprint it, read it aloud, as long as you don’t change it – including this bit – so that people know that they can find more ideas for free at http://www.badscience.net/

Damage Done: Why We Should Care About AIDS Denialism

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

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

The Christine Maggiore Story: Final Chapter?

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

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

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

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

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

What Is HIV/AIDS Denialism?

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


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

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

When Denialists Get Their Due, Do We All Pay?

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

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

Why Christine Maggiore’s Cause of Death Does Not Matter

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

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

Denialism and the Death of Christine Maggiore

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

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

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

Missing Denialist

Blind romantics still believe that Rethinking AIDS Society President David Crowe actually exists.

But if David Crowe has never been met in person, does he really exist?

Never met in person?

You bet!
I know there are pictures of David Crowe, but are they really him? Do they meet my standards of real photo identification?

Or is that just an actor playing David Crowe in the AIDS denialist videos we see?

David Crowe has a website, but that could be anyone.

David Crowe writes articles for online health food magazines, but there is a conspiracy among naturalists, the vitamin industry, and the herbal medicine cartel that keeps the David Crowe myth going.