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This summer’s saga of Peter Duesberg’s Medical Hypotheses retracted article should probably be put to rest.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.

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?

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.

Christine Maggiore, 1956-2008

Christine Maggiore, vocal skeptic of AIDS research, dies at 52. By Anna Gorman and Alexandra Zavis, The LA Times, 8:48 PM PST, Dec 29, 2008

Until the end, Christine Maggiore remained defiant.On national television and in a blistering book, she denounced research showing that HIV causes AIDS. She refused to take medications to treat her own virus. She gave birth to two children and breast fed them, denying any risk to their health. And when her 3-year-old child, Eliza Jane, died of what the coroner determined to be AIDS-related pneumonia, she protested the findings and sued the county.

On Saturday, Maggiore died at her Van Nuys home, leaving a husband, a son and many unanswered questions. She was 52.According to officials at the Los Angeles County coroner's office, she had been treated for pneumonia in the last six months. Because she had recently been under a doctor's care, no autopsy will be performed unless requested by the family, they said.

The ABC’s of HIV Prevention Denialism

AbstiThe past decade has seen a relentless demand for placing sexual abstinence-only programs at the forefront of HIV prevention. Most notably is the official US HIV prevention policy for the ABC approach – Abstinence until marriage; advising those who are sexually active to Be faithful to one partner; and finally, urging Condom use, especially for those who have more than one sexual partner.

Despite repeated reviews of carefully controlled behavioral intervention trials, HIV prevention science has been ignored for the sake of conservative political agendas. For example, Underhill and colleagues identified 13 carefully controlled intervention trials that enrolled nearly16,000 US youths. "Compared with various controls, no programme affected incidence of unprotected vaginal sex, number of partners, condom use, or sexual initiation. One trial observed adverse effects at short term follow-up (sexually transmitted infections, frequency of sex) and long term follow-up (sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy) compared with usual care, but findings were offset by trials with non-significant results. Another trial observed a protective effect on incidence of vaginal sex compared with usual care, but this was limited to short term follow-up and countered by trials with non-significant findings.”