AIDS Denialism

[polomint38]

There was an article in the latest New Humanist on Aids Denialism.

http://newhumanist.org.uk/2165/how-t...rdecember-2009

Any Views (this seems to be one of denialist themes we are currently not discussing)

[skbuncks]

I think AIDS denialists can probably be slotted into one of several camps:

1) Those with some form of alternative agenda to push, be it alternate medical theories or political conspiracy theories. Suffice to say they will no doube be making a profit off the back of it.

2) Those who have some useless woo or CAM to sell.

2) People, or relatives of people, who are HIV + and are looking for some shred of hope that they are not in fact up shit creek without a paddle.

3) Idiots and stupid people.

skb

ETA: liked this from the above linky

The most credentialled AIDS denialists are Nobel Laureate Kari Mullis, who developed the PCR technology for sequencing the genetic code, and Peter Duesberg, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of California-Berkeley and member of the National Academy of Science. Although credentialled, neither is credible. Aside from saying HIV cannot cause AIDS, though he has done no research on AIDS, Mullis has shared his experiences on LSD and encounters with an alien fluorescent raccoon, and Duesberg, who did important work on cancer in his early career, now claims that there is no genetic basis for any cancer. Both have demonstrated an outright disregard for scientific evidence.

[panama]

Also from the link, I thought this was good.

Just as HIV attacks our immune defences that would otherwise destroy it, AIDS denialists appeal to our sense of scepticism. Indeed, AIDS denialists refer to themselves as dissident scientists and sceptics.

That second sentence, alone, is worthy of a discussion.

[Croydon Bob]

It's clear from the article that the AIDS deniers are just like the Vaccine deniers, Climate Change deniers, etc. They are all conspiracy theory nutters with the same agendas, logical flaws, etc.


On a related note: Jack of Kent blogged recently complaining about use of the word "denialism" to describe deniers. He even proposed a general rule:

Whatever the other merits of making an accusation of Denialism, it will usually tend to be a public engagement FAIL.

A baffling suggestion. I see no logic or merit in it at all. One might as well suggest that we shouldn't call conspiracy theorists conspiracy theorists or creationists creationists.

[jimwalsh]

It's clear from the article that the AIDS deniers are just like the Vaccine deniers, Climate Change deniers, etc. They are all conspiracy theory nutters with the same agendas, logical flaws, etc.

I have a deep personal interest to state here though as a close relative of mine died of AIDS in 1996 and managed to maintain his views on AIDS through to the end. Through this I came into contact with lots of HIV/AIDS denialists.

I do have massive sympathy for those with the disease who are trying to make sense of a terrible disease (and treatment) that robs people of dignity self esteem and purpose in life. And for some that may mean having views on AIDS that I find difficult. However I have absolutely no time for terrible fuckers like Rath or Duesberg who are self agrandising Pricks without conscience...