Dean's World

Oh, surely not.

Things like that don't happen. The peer review system is much too robust and sturdy to allow things like that, and anyone who says otherwise is anti-science and anti-medicine.

Karol Sikora notes:

It monopolised ministerial attention and swallowed huge sums of public money in campaigns to raise public awareness.

The gay community, which was the most likely to be affected by Aids, was at the forefront of the pressure for vastly increased state funding.

A whiff of panic filled the air, with projections of a soaring rate of mortality from Aids before the end of the century.

The Aids terror was extended overseas. It was said that a massive pandemic, on the scale of a modern Black Death, was sweeping through the Third World.

Death, in the form of HIV/Aids, was sweeping his cruel scythe through Africa and the Indian sub-continent, extracting an unprecedented toll.

And it turned out to be a bunch of crap, sucking up money and attention giving people condoms and useless medicines that should have been spent on malaria, cholera, sanitation, and nutrition.

One day a reckoning is going to come on this, but I suspect those most responsible will have managed a golden parachute to retirement without having to give any real accounting. Instead the young turks will wind up paying the price in shame.

When you pay people to see something, it turns out that they tend to see it whether it's there or not.

Oops.

So once again we see that the worst and most insidious global infectious pandemic disease of our generation is, uh, not.

I've sort of lost track, is AIDS a gay issue or is it not?

OK, we get it. Even though the vast majority of retroviruses do not do anything particularly awful, this one is a lethal pathogen that requires a worldwide response. Got it. No further questions allowed.

Hey, does anyone derive their income from all this? Just curious.

(Thanks Trudy.)

I never would have imagined.

25 years and tens of billions of dollars later, look what they've got to show for themselves: a drug regime of dubious value, and still no clear mechanism for disease causation.

Next up: a list of all the other retroviruses that cause "100% fatal" diseases.

Any chance that this well-funded government industry could use a fundamental re-evaluation from the ground up?

...in Gay & Lesbian Times.

I thought Geshekter's comments were particularly thoughtful. And I expect thundering denunciations and shrieks of "denier" thrown at Pat Sherman and G&L Times to be forthcoming shortly.

Looks like the Wall Street Journal has noticed something's up.

I'm wondering when I'm going to get some sort of apology from some folks who obviously owe me one. Probably never. Ah well.

Note to the Wall Street Journal, or other serious news organs: why exactly is Peter Duesberg a "pariah," as Scientific American called him? What exactly did he do wrong? He published a few invited papers that were approved by respected scientific editors and editorial peer reviewers (who had no financial conflicts of interest) that questioned the role of HIV in AIDS. Was it publishing those papers?

Is it because in his call for a public debate in the pages of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Robert Gallo agreed to debate him and then declared that he was too busy saving lives to be bothered?

What is it EXACTLY that this mild-mannered professor with an unorthodox opinion did that was so bad that even though ten years ago he advanced a hugely important theory in cancer research that everyone in the industry now acknowledges, he still can't get a grant application approved to save his life?

Since when did questioning established medical procedures make one a "pariah?" Why didn't it immediately become, "Well, Peter's just wrong here, but he's got a right to his odd opinions," which is the norm with most credible and qualified scientific dissenters? Just curious.

Why is he a pariah exactly? Some crack reporter should investigate and ask for more than the opinions of researchers who have clear financial conflicts of interest, no?

Man. This is getting funny. Professor Brown defends Professor Culshaw from a group of increasingly hysterical virus researchers. (Rebecca Culshaw is a mathematical biologist and former professional AIDS researcher.)

Dig that quote from Professor Fendel, too.

My God, what have these people been doing with our tax money? (And no, I don't mean Culshaw or Brown.)

*This article bumped to the top. See update below.*

I must say, I'm geeked.

For years now I've recognized that Professor Peter Duesberg of Berkeley is one of the most wrongly-maligned scientists on the planet. He may not be right about everything but he simply does not deserve the kicking-around he's gotten.

I've also said for some time that he is responsible for a theory on what causes cancer that is almost certainly correct. I've been saying so for years, and often been patronized for it. But based on what I knew was going on behind the scenes, I repeatedly told Dean's World readers to watch for it, because it would be coming in the popular press.

Slowly, it's been happening, like a snowball building. We've all been watching it happen (here, for example). Now it has reached a new level: the latest issue of Scientific American has a major article by Peter on Cancer, and it pretty firmly establishes, to anyone who reads it, that the aneuploidy theory of carcinogenesis is very serious and may just be the most important development in cancer research in decades.

He is the man responsible for bringing it to light. No one can deny it, although many would like to.

An interesting sidelight is that, because of his AIDS heresy (Peter has never believed that HIV kills t-cells), he has been permanently locked out of any funding from our often corrupt, unaccountable, cronyism-laced funding system for scientific research. As Professor Richard Strohman recently stated:

I would like to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate my long time friend and colleague, Peter Duesberg, on this quite remarkable 'breakthrough' into completely mainstream recognition.

I would also like to point out that even the "Disclaimer" is to his credit. In much the same way as with the Rene Magritte painting that declares itself not to be a pipe, one cannot help but be caught on the horns of several logical and semantic dilemmas when encountering it.

The one that first comes to mind as particularly relevant to Peter and AIDS is that it does seem impossible that a man who might just be correct concerning something as complicated as the genetic basis of malignancy could be so totally wrong about something as straightforward as whether HIV kills T-cells.

America's system of funding scientific research has been labeled as "peer review." This is, much too often, a lie. In many cases--not all, but many--it needs to be called "Crony Review." Peter still to this day cannot get a grant application approved to save his life. This despite an exceptional record of achievement before he dared question whether HIV really kills t-cells. And despite the fact that over ten years ago he advanced what may well be the most important development in cancer research in a generation.

While millions died, our corrupt Crony Review system blew it big time. Peter's not the only one who illustrates this fundamental breakdown in scientific protocol, but he's probably the most egregious example.

A scientist who has made major contributions in important areas, but questions the consensus view, should not be punished for it should he? Yet Peter has been, repeatedly.

It is high time that the American taxpayer stops being scared of scientists, and starts asking pointed questions about how our tax dollars are spent on this funding system. As Al Gore is so fond of noting:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

It's not conspiracy. It's the bureaucracy, stupid.

Government incompetence married to corporate self-interest: it's not a good thing.

In any case, without that sideline: check out the latest Scientific American, which should be on news stands now. Hated dissident Peter Duesberg is on the cover because no one can deny that he's fundamentally changed the face of cancer research. And how cool is that?

You read it here first.

*Update*: For some reason an earlier thread linked to this one by Celia Farber disappeared. In any case, I got some emails from Professor Duesberg and put them into the comments here.

Fascinating.

Did you know that when they discovered HIV, it was one of the very first, tiny handful of retroviruses anyone had ever identified? And that they didn't decide until some time after its discovery to look for it in the early AIDS patients--and that they found it in a lot of them but not all of them? Now, it turns out, retroviruses are quite common, they aren't rare at all, and they're all so simple that they're relatively easy to reproduce in a lab--and most of 'em don't do much of anything.

Isn't that amazing.

I am often critical of the BBC. But it's usually over very specific points and very specific practices. I don't think they're a terrible organization by any means. Indeed, I think they are something the British should generally be very proud of. The BBC World Service is a gift to the world that every Brit should be proud of.

Recently there was a stingingly critical piece put out by the BBC called "Guinea Pig Kids," which looked at some truly horrible practices in HIV/AIDS research on children. Mostly poor children with no parents or individual guardians to protect them. Wherever you come down on the HIV debate, I think most people would be appalled at some of what's been going on in the name of this research.

Recently some in the HIV/AIDS establishment--and there is such an establishment, by the way, paid by both corporate and government sources--has been trying to censor the "Guinea Pig Kids" story. It is literal censorship that they're advocating: they want the video pulled from general distribution, and for the BBC to pull everything off the Internet that they have on this story.

Dr. Andrew Maniotis of the Department of Pathology at the University of Illinois at Chicago has a lot to say on the matter that you should read.

The endless quest to shut these people up should tell you something. More on the Guinea Pig Kids right here from the BBC.

Almost everyone in the AIDS research community now admits that the megadoses of Ziduvodine (AZT) that were given to early AIDS patients in the 1980s were insanely high. AZT is quite deadly, and no one that I'm aware of denies this anymore. Even if you believe the standard wisdom on HIV, megadoses of AZT are a bad, bad idea according to most sources. Giving an HIV+ person the standard doses of AZT that were used 15 years ago would be considered medical malpractice now. If you use it at all, you're supposed to use it in very small doses in combination with other drug therapies.

Well, that's true in the US and Europe anyway. In Africa, apparently not so much.

Any chance that giving those kids better food and clean water might help them more than drugs? Just curious.

Please read this story.

After you've read it, please consider visiting this page.

Kathleen writes:

From the Freakonomics blog, I found this article: Three Things You Don't Know About AIDS In Africa. It's not entirely related to the issues you have with AIDS, but I thought it would be interesting.

In fact it is entirely related to the issues I have with the scientific status quo. I don't know, for example, that Peter Duesberg is correct. But I do know that he simply does not deserve the kicking around he's gotten. A sane, rational scientific community would be saying, "Well you know, Peter's kind of a maverick and we think he's off-base here but he's a good guy who has made some worthy contributions, and anyway here's why we think he's wrong." The fury, the absolute condemnation, and the utter contempt have always hit me as a major red flag. Ditto the idea that just by expressing his doubts he's a threat to world health--what, adults are not allowed to hear about scientific doubters? Just hearing the doubts expressed is going to kill millions of people?

The truth is that independent researchers--mathematicians, mathematical biologists, medical doctors, and many others have looked at the data repeatedly and said, "you know, there's something very wrong here." Now an independent economist has drawn the same conclusion. She takes the standard position that HIV is dangerous, but concludes that the numbers we've had thrown at us about how HIV is ravaging Africa just don't add up. Which, quite obviously, they do not.

You have here a virus that even the establishment now admits carries about a 1 in 1,000 chance of being transmitted through sexual intercourse--i.e. if you sleep one time with an HIV infected person you have only a 1 in 1,000 chance of picking up the virus yourself. Even assuming the virus is all it's cracked up to be, that is wildly at odds with the danger that we were all told it represented.

For years they told us this virus was 100% lethal--that it would "kill Clark Kent" in Robert Gallo's words--and that turns out not to be the case. In fact, we've got people who've been HIV+ for over 20 years who are still walking around healthy as horses, refusing to take any medication, and willing to be part of experiments. Yet until very recently no one in the research community has expressed much of any interest in even talking to them.

They also now admit that the plague never really ravaged the US or European population, and is never going to.

Ah, but in Africa, it's totally out of control in the black population (and only the black population). Which means those primitive darkies must be screwing like rabid jackrabbits. Indeed, they often told us that as many as 1 in 3 black Africans were already dying of this hideous virus. As far back as the 1980s they were telling us that. Yet mysteriously, sub-Saharan Africa's population continues to grow at a brisk pace. So apparently after the raging epidemic started killing off a full third of the population, black African women started having babies at several times the normal rate?

Ah, but it was the rethinkers, the skeptics and the questioners, who all along were the nutjobs where were completely in the wrong?

I linked this earlier, but I'll link it again: Dr. Jeffrey Dach on fried watermelons. Still seems pretty on the money to me.

Quoted:

Dean:

Since you seem to be on a crusade to prove that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, don't you think the most courageous thing you could do would be to volunteer to have yourself injected with HIV? Since I assume that you don't engage in those high-risk behaviors like recreational drug use and gay sex, and you are in fact questioning whether AIDS drugs actually cause AIDS, you could be an important test case. Getting yourself injected, then living a long, drug-free, healthy life would be the best proof possible of your hypothesis, right?

Curious to hear your thoughts on this.

Best, Thomas More.

Hi Thomas.

Several people, including Peter Duesberg, have repeatedly made this offer, with only a few simple and straightforward requirements. They've all been ignored.

But I am not on any crusade and I have nothing to prove. Indeed, the very claim that I'm on a "crusade" on this matter is more than a little annoying. If I'm on a crusade for anything it is greater accountability to the taxpayers who fund HIV research, and greater accountability to HIV+ individuals, and more rigorous scientific standards.

However, as it happens yes, there are quite a few people who've openly offered to self-inject. There are also quite a large number of HIV+ individuals who are refusing the anti-retrovirals who are willing to be studied or take part in studies.

But, like so many mammoth government and corporate bureaucracies, the system has been jerry-rigged: as it stands, it is illegal to work with HIV or HIV+ individuals in any research setting without government permission, and any researcher doing it without permission can lose his lab and his job and maybe even go to jail.

Furthermore, over the last 20 years they have gradually expanded the case definition of AIDS, and the supposed latency period of the virus, to the point that they would no longer consider it in the least bit unusual for someone to self-inject and then live 20 years perfectly healthy. So let's see, I'm 40 years old, I self-inject now, and in 20 years I develop a heart condition and then contract a bad case of pneumonia. By current definitions they would claim I died of AIDS, not because of the heart condition but because of the pneumonia and, after all, I was HIV+.

Or if I didn't die? If I lived to a ripe old age of 95? They would call me one of the "lucky" ones, the "long-term non-progressors." Or maybe one of the people they're only just now very reluctantly beginning to admit might, possibly, maybe exist: people who are "completely immune" to the virus.

After spending literally over 20 years and tens of billions of dollars studying HIV--more time and money than was spent putting a man on the moon--so far the HIV establishment cannot answer simple questions like exactly how the virus causes t-cell loss, or what your exact odds of dying from the virus are if you live a sanitary, well-nourished, non drug using, and monogamous lifestyle. Although at least now they admit that in the United States it's actually very difficult for healthy heterosexuals to transmit the virus to each other via regular heterosexual intercourse.

Yet somehow they still wish us to believe the problem is still rampantly out of control in Africa--basically, that black Africans are so sexually promiscuous and irresponsible that as many as a third of them are dying of the disease. Funny bit being they've been saying that for over 20 years but the African population continues to expand.

Oh yes, and they recently admitted that they grossly exaggerated HIV's spread in Africa--in parts at least. Without explaining in detail why their new methodologies are that much better than the old ones they admit failed.

Thought-provoking question: even if HIV really is immune-suppressive, would we have saved more Africans (or Americans) by giving them clean water, sanitation, and decent food, and healthy lifestyle information, rather than condoms and expensive and clearly toxic drugs?

It is not in the least bit out of line for anyone who pays taxes to demand simple, straightforward, non-condescending answers to any of these questions. Nor to demand greater transparency and accountability in the funding. The establishment's hiding behind their bogus "peer review" (read: Good Ole Boy Network) process in grant allocation needs reform, and not just in this area.

You want self-injectors? Quite a few are already on the table offering this, which may in part explain why the establishment has worked so hard in recent years to suggest that any such individuals can be ignored anyway--unless they happen to die of anything that vaguely looks like AIDS, in which case they'll ferociously declare it AIDS anyway.

If none of this sounds right to you, then start asking more questions. Remember: it's your tax dollars they are spending.

Regards,

Dean

PS: By the way, here's a study that could be easily funded and would stop a lot of the debate in its tracks. And it would be amazingly cheap compared to a lot of other research. If HIV is indeed a perinatally transmitted retrovirus (of which there are uncounted numbers) then it would be simple enough to test the mothers of a few hundred HIV+ gay men and IV drug users in the United States. It'd be pretty easy to control and double-blind too.

Prediction: none of the "peer reviewers" who control all the grant funding and all the legal permissions to study HIV will be willing to give even a few thousand dollars out of the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars they control to fund such a study. They'll even act offended that despicable little peon taxpayers like me and you would possibly dare to suggest experiments--we aren't "qualified" and anyway we don't wear halos like they do.

P.P.S.: Magic Johnson will be on Oprah today. Lee Evans has a question for him.

Professor Darin Brown explains.

Evil denialist pseudoscientist who just wants people to die that he is.

By the way, you should still read this entire Celia Farber piece if you haven't already.

Celia Farber notes at least one horror story.

But the drugs, they're always the better response. Right?

What if it turned out that HIV suppressed the immune system, but with good nutrition, exercise, regular sleep, monogamy, and other non-chemical interventions, it turned out to be possible to have a relatively drug-free life? Or to live 10-20 years before needing chemotherapy?

Just curious.

As is well known I am no fan of Daily Kos. I'm also known for believing that the entire field of HIV "research" is so rife with croneyism, unacceptable conflicts of interest, and shoddy, non-falsifiable science as to be simply scandalous.

Nevertheless, regardless of any of that, this is a horrific and unacceptable story, and there are good ideas you can use there to try to help the situation.

If you have a blog and would like to join this blogswarm, just link this posting on Daily Kos. Don't link me, link this.

The anonymous "Pharma Bawd" recently asked if I am ignorant or dishonest regarding recent findings on Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy, i.e. the "AIDS cocktails" that we've all heard so much about. In evidence of my dishonesty and/or ignorance, she cited this Lancet Study article I wrote on September 1, wherein I quoted Hank Barnes.

I took Hank's word for it when I wrote that. Hank's a man I personally know to be honest and honorable if not always correct. (And wouldn't it be nice if we could all say that about each other?)

Now in truth, I do not, and never have, believed that the question of AIDS etiology should be worked out through weblogs. Weblogs might play a valuable role in raising questions and forcing the research community to be more forthcoming to the taxpayers, but I do not think webloggers like me can answer most of the hard questions.

What I do think, however, is that weblogs can force both science journalists and taxpayer-funded researchers to be more honest, more transparent, and more accountable for the tax funding that researchers receive.

I also repeat something I have said many times: if you are receiving taxpayer funding for your research, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with everyday taxpayers asking questions, even hard and pointed questions. We've given you tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions or hundreds of millions of dollars to pursue your research. On some subjects, such as Global Warming, Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Earthquake Research, or AIDS, we've given you literally billions of dollars of our money.

In the particular case of AIDS, we taxpayers have now spent more money and more man-years than we did in both the Mercury and Apollo missions. We spent fewer years, and fewer dollars, putting a man into orbit and putting a man on the moon than we have so far on HIV (or cancer, for that matter).

Yet to this day no one in the HIV research community can tell us exactly the mechanism by which HIV destroys the immune system. The old theory, that it acts primarily by targeting and killing T-Cells, has already been discredited. No one I'm aware of, including the anonymous "Pharma Bawd," claims that this is what this virus does. So what does this virus do exactly?

I remember well when David Ho introduced the AIDS Cocktail (HAART) to the world and told us that attacking the virus would fix the problem. "It's the virus, stupid" was the war cry. And initially, Ho's cocktails were hailed as the great breakthrough. By using PCR amplification, they claimed they could measure the amount of virus in a person's system and attack that virus directly. If we could lower the amount of virus in someone's system, we could extend their lives.

This was all in the early 1990s, more than 10 years ago. And the initial claims were promising. After all, at the time, anyone diagnosed with AIDS was supposed to be dead within a year or so, and they were horribly sick until they died. Suddenly, after going on the non-AZT cocktails (or cocktails with a lot less AZT in them anyway) they got better and even started to live longer and feel better.

Most said, "Wow, these drugs are awesome! Patients live a lot longer and feel a lot better!"

A few of us said, "Wow, so these drugs are less toxic than AZT, so they live longer. Huh. Well that looks like progress anyway."

Now in 2006, a Lancet study has concluded that the AIDS cocktails do not increase lifespan. "Pharma Bawd" says I'm stupid and/or dishonest because she says the study only says they don't live longer during the first year. They don't live any longer during the first year, but after the first year they supposedly live longer. And Hank's a liar because he misquoted the study.

OK, I've read the study. Twice now. I admit that some of the language is dense and, as a non-biologist, I can't understand all of it. I understand most of it, but some of it still confuses me. But, to be fair to the study's authors, they were not writing for laymen like me. Nevertheless, they wrote this conclusion:

Interpretation: Virological response after starting HAART improved over calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a decrease in mortality.

In short, the virus (measured by PCR amplification) went down, and the leukocytes went up, but the patients didn't actually live longer. During the first year anyway.

This for a virus that they used to tell us was 100% fatal within a year or two, and for which they told us that HAART (i.e. the cocktails) was the miracle that extended lives. The drugs were the reason that Andrew Sullivan and Magic Johnson are still with us, they told us.

Now, in 2006, it's this: "If you have AIDS, these drugs cannot improve your lifespan over the next year. But possibly, if you keep taking them, then past 1 year you might live longer. If you don't die in the first year." According to the anonymous "Pharma Bawd" and her better reading of this paper, anyway.

If I'm reading it right, and accepting all of anonymous "Pharma Bawd's" assertions, that's what it says. So I ask anonymous "Pharma Bawd" if she thinks I'm quoting her correctly. She's smarter than me after all, so let her explain if she thinks I've been unfair.

In any case, just for anyone who cares, here is the entire paper verbatim (which anonymous "Pharma Bawd" supplied me with, and for which I thank her sincerely). So I invite you to read it and tell me if I've missed something important, or been unfair somehow. It's a PDF, so you'll need Acrobat Reader if you don't have it already.)

So, you read it. And tell me what you think I've missed, or if you think I've been unfair to the authors somewhere. I won't edit you. You just go ahead and tell me what I missed.

I also offer to give Pharma Bawd an unrestricted comment account on Dean's World, with the following caveats: given that I've had more than one person pretend to be a "scientist" in the Dean's World comments, I will not allow total anonymity for those who wish to speak on such matters. If they are speaking *as professionals* in their *personal field*.

I don't care if some anonymous physicist or biologist or archaeologist or lawyer or architect or psychologist wants to comment upon matters unrelated to their field, or just leave off-the-cuff comments. But if you want to comment here and actually talk about your area of specialization, *as a professional*, then I'm not going to put up with complete anonymity anymore.

If you want to claim to be a scientist, and to speak as a scientist, then you must reveal your actual name and your actual credentials. Preferably publicly, but if not publicly then to me privately. I just need a real name, a real email address, and real phone # and credentials that I can verify.

You don't have to go public with it. If you ask me to keep it private I will. Ask any of my co-bloggers or friends online and they will tell you I am an honorable man. If you ask me to keep something private then I will.

But I will no longer put up with people like "Dale," the anonymous "molecular biologist" from the University of Rochester med school who made all sorts of bloviating claims but could not back them up when (repeatedly) challenged, and whose best defense of his anonymity was "Professor Harvey Bialy might send me nasty emails."

I'll give a public forum to any credentialed scientist who wants to answer these questions publicly. I'll even bend over backwards: so long as you provide me and me alone verifiable evidence of your credentials, I'll let you in. And give you my word that I will never publicly "out" you, if you're too afraid to just publicly identify yourself.

So now it's your move. The most conservative interpretation of the Lancet paper linked above is that during the first year of treatment the AIDS cocktails do not save lives. So are you willing to stand by that or what? And is that an unfair question for me, a taxpayer who has given you billions of dollars and decades of support to ask?

You tell me.

And let anyone tell me (or any of my co-bloggers) if they think I'm being unfair in my questions.

I have recently added this button to the Dean's World sidebar:

(Please click the graphic for more info.)

If you have questions like I do, then I encourage you to add this same graphic to your own blog's sidebar.

To be clear about it: you do not have to believe that Peter Duesberg is correct. You do not have to believe that Christine Maggiore is correct. You do not have to believe that Celia Farber is correct. You do not have to believe that Michael Fumento is correct. You do not have to believe that Root-Bernstein is correct. Or that the people at New AIDS Review are correct. Or that Harvey Bialy is correct.

What you should believe is that Nobel laureate Walter Gilbert, one of the founders of Molecular Biology, believes there is something very wrong going on here. What you should believe is that Kary Mullis, another Nobel laureate and biochemist, believes there's something wrong going on here. Lynn Margulis, one of the world's pre-eminent evolutionary biologists, believes there's something wrong going on here. You should believe that Don Miller, professor of Surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle, thinks that there's something wrong going on here. You should believe that Gerald Pollack, one of the world's pre-eminent bio-engineers, thinks that there's something wrong going on here.

"Conspiracy" you say? Well heck my brother Aziz thinks I'm mad to pursue this. Well why shouldn't he? But I don't believe in conspiracies. Hell if you ask me, Oswald acted alone, there is no Area 51, and the Cryptozoologists are mostly (99.99%) wasting everybody's time. I have almost *no* respect for the wild-eyed conspiracy theorists of the world.

Yet these folks at the "A Moment Of Science" weblog think I'm either a liar or an idiot. Well okay. I'm no liar, but I may be an idiot. If so, I've got some well-credentialed idiots who are also on my side. All better-credentialed than the "Moment of Science" blowhards, anyway. Indeed, compared to the Loose Change nutjobs, I've got WAAAY more credentialed people on my side. So I merely ask: how many of the "Moment of Science" bloggers are Nobel Laureates and/or National Academy of Sciences members? Just checking.

If you, like me, are doubting if we've been told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about HIV, then I invite you to join this campaign. And I also suggest you stop pretending you have all the answers for the bullies and the blowhards, because we don't have them. We just want to know if we've been told the whole truth, and made the right choices.

A lot of people, including a lot of gay men and a lot of people in Africa, are dying. This includes people we love and care about. So are we giving them the medical treatment they really need? Have we really made the right choices on this whole thing?

Your tax dollars paid for 100% of this research. So you're allowed to ask these inconvenient questions, aren't you? Your government spends billions on this every year, after all.

If you have a blog you can join this campaign, with details right here.

I think you should read this article in its entirety if you haven't already. Then just ask this:

Have they told us everything? Are they spending our money wisely? I think that's a fair question for any taxpaying American citizen to ask. Or any World Citizen who honestly cares.

(Please click the button for more info.)

Elle Magazine Makes Me a Believer

Last fall, I met with Gretchen Reynolds, a freelance journalist on assignment from Elle, a fashion magazine that includes articles on health and current affairs. A self-described science writer, Reynolds said she was working on piece about AIDS that would explore unanswered questions about HIV, introduce some the individuals raising those questions, and include something on the controversy surrounding the death of my daughter.

As it turns out, Reynolds' dishonesty was not limited to her pitch. I am the sole focus of "The Believer," a mendacious and sensationalistic article that abstains from any intelligent examination of science fact. Reynolds errors are so extravagant and numerous, the magazine's editor, Lisa Chase, asked me for a complete list to forward to Elle's legal department for investigation.

Below please find my letter to Ms. Chase along with a summary of Reynolds' deviations from reality. The article is found in the September issue of Elle, and if you can make your way through all the spins without becoming nauseated, please consider sending your own comments to editor Lisa Chase and writer Gretchen Reynolds

===

Dear Lisa,

Thank you for your response to my concerns regarding Gretchen Reynolds’ article “The Believer” (Elle, September 2006).

As I mentioned during our telephone conversation, I asked Corrie Pikul for permission to tape record the fact check after noting two false claims at the beginning of our review:

1) That my former boyfriend had died of AIDS years ago, when in fact, he is alive and well.

2) That I held up my children to cheering crowds on stages and at rallies, when in fact, my children have never joined me on a stage or at any public event.

Below is a list of most of the errors in the article, which are divide between points major and minor as per our discussion. Please note that I provided Ms Reynolds with documents and explanations for all points of fact listed here.

I look forward to learning how this matter can be resolved, and in the meantime, am grateful for your interest and involvement.

With appreciation,

Christine Maggiore

Major Errors:

1) Reynolds states that “In all probability, Eliza Jane became infected with HIV during gestation, labor or breastfeeding,” when in fact, the autopsy report does not give her HIV status, and we have no laboratory evidence from the coroner of a positive HIV test, despite multiple requests for such evidence by our attorneys.

2) Reynolds states that the coroner found “strands of HIV’s molecular proteins throughout [my daughter’s] inflamed brain” when in fact, her brain was normal (not inflamed) per a CAT scan taken at the emergency room, per the findings at autopsy, and per a neuropathology exam included in the autopsy report. Further, the finding of a single protein, rather than “strands of HIV’s molecular proteins,” was added as an amendment to coroner’s report four months after the original autopsy.

3) Reynolds claims that “the pathologists didn’t order an HIV test in the normal course of investigating the death of a white, middle class three year old…” as if race and income dictate testing decisions. Instead, the coroner’s office has stated that cases of unexplained death “are not routinely tested for HIV because AIDS is so obvious.”

4) Reynolds changes my definition of pneumonia from the correct one, “inflammation of the lung caused by disease,” to a medically incorrect interpretation, “swelling of the lungs,” and falsely attributes this mistake to me. The correct definition is crucial to the story as my daughter’s autopsy report states that medical examiners found “no inflammation” of her lungs, thereby ruling out pneumonia.

Reynolds compounds this error by omitting a correct reference to swelling, that is, that the autopsy notes swelling of all my daughter’s vital organs, a hallmark of toxic reaction, especially in lungs described at autopsy as having “no inflammation.”

5) Reynolds claims my daughter endured “a day of nausea, vomiting and wheezing,” before she died, a description of events that is not in 911 transcripts; in medical, EMT or hospital records; in my testimony included in the autopsy report; or in my interview with Reynolds.

Please note that the error about “a day of vomiting” was specifically corrected during the fact check yet appears in the article nonetheless, and the unsubstantiated allegation that my daughter was also “wheezing” and had “nausea” was not mentioned during the fact check.

6) Reynolds claims that, “a number of pathologists have examined both the original autopsy and the alternative version. All have publicly concluded that the original was correct,” when disagreement with the original findings by pathologists and other medical experts appears in the public record. In fact, the “alternate version” of the original autopsy was published in a peer reviewed medical journal with an editorial board consisting of 10 PhDs and 12 MDs with whom I have no association.

7) Reynolds claims my response to the coroner’s September declaration was “an immediate…‘it’s not true!’” when in fact, my first public statement on the issue came during a December 5th broadcast of ABC’s PrimeTime, and did not contain the words “It’s not true!” (Per the program transcript: "I believe the unfortunate irony in this situation is that the one time we were asked to and that we complied with mainstream medicine, we inadvertently gave our daughter something that took her life.”)

8) Reynolds claims I “fought back” against the September declaration my daughter died of AIDS by hiring a pathologist. In fact, the pathologist’s request to receive a copy of the autopsy report was submitted to the coroner’s office in May, four months before the declaration was issued.

9) Reynolds claims “as soon as Eliza Jane had been declared dead, a large, unwieldy investigative mechanism swung into action” when in fact, the police investigation began several weeks after her death, and the Department of Children and Family Services was not involved until four months later.

10) Reynolds states that “DCFS closed its investigation after insisting that [my son] be tested for HIV or lose custody” when in fact, Charlie had three times tested HIV negative prior to the DCFS investigation. As reported in the Los Angeles Times, “After reviewing recent test results from three labs showing that the boy is HIV-negative, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services is expecting to close its child endangerment investigation…”

11) Reynolds claims, “When I ask [Maggiore] about the current HIV tests that isolate actual viral RNA, she dismisses them as meaningless, saying they reveal only ‘protein strands,’” when in fact, I cited the test kit's disclaimer for Reynolds which states that it is “not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic to confirm HIV infection.”

12) In her “quick primer” on AIDS, Reynolds mentions that AIDS conditions occur when CD4 T lymphocyte cells are depleted, weakening the body’s ability to fight off infection,” but does not mention that my daughter’s total lymphocyte count at the time of her death was well above normal and five times higher than World Health Organization’s guidelines for diagnosing AIDS via total lymphocyte count (Costello C et al. Predictors of low CD4 count in resource-limited settings. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 39: 242-248, 2005).

13) Reynolds states that my daughter had “sores in her mouth suggestive of herpes” when the autopsy report makes no mention of sores of any kind in her mouth.

14) Reynolds writes that I looked into “HIV deniers…at the suggestion of a friend,” omitting the well known fact that a year into my positive diagnosis, I experienced a series of conflicting HIV test results that fluctuated between positive, negative and indeterminate, and that this prompted my investigation into AIDS science.

15) Reynolds quotes Dr Jay Gordon as saying, “I’m sure I urged [Maggiore] to have the children tested,” yet medical records show that Gordon did not discuss or order HIV tests for Eliza Jane or her brother Charlie, not even at an exam with Charlie two days after his sister’s death.

16) Reynolds writes that “At last on May 14…Maggiore called Philip Incao [to see Eliza Jane]” omitting a May 7 exam with Dr Incao that followed the visit with Dr Gordon. Reynolds also omits that at the May 7 and May 14 exams, records show my daughter had no cough. Instead she writes, “the child’s runny nose, cough and malaise lingered.”

17) Reynolds’ article leaves out why my daughter’s case was referred to the LA County Coroner’s office: A physical exam, two chest Xrays, a CAT scan, a spinal tap, blood work and other tests performed at the ER provided no insight into why Eliza Jane had died.

18) Reynolds omits mention of the fact that the credibility of Dr James K Ribe, the coroner brought in to resolve my daughter’s case, has been challenged by the District Attorney as well as in numerous judicial proceedings, or that Ribe is currently a defendant in a civil suit for having altered autopsy reports of several murder victims to conform to a confession later determined to have been fabricated by police.

Minor Errors:

A two-month pre-coital courtship with my husband is described as “they met, dated once or twice, had sex.”

My two day wait for treatment of a faulty root canal is described as me “still being bothered by an excruciating mouth abscess” a year after my daughter’s death.

My husband’s four-day trip to New York last year was described as him “spending long periods away from [home] in New York and elsewhere.”

I am described as wearing a “cut off denim miniskirt” when I wore a skirt with a hemline that falls mid-knee.

The article states, I “scheduled the appointment [for an abortion], arrived at the office, and then, at the last moment, uncertain, unsettled, left.” In fact, as I explained to Reynolds, a doctor halted the procedure after a pre-operation ultrasound mistakenly indicated I was 15 weeks pregnant.

My husband is described as having “dark, unruly hair” when his hair is sandy blonde and straight.

The article includes a fictitious scene in which I “set my son up with his homework at the kitchen table.” In fact, the school he attends does not assign homework until third grade which he begins this fall.

The Lancet just published a massive study of over 20,000 AIDS patients and determined that anti-retroviral drugs do not increase the lifespan of AIDS patients. They increase leukocyte counts and reduce "viral load," but do not save lives. HAART is a failure, in other words.

Well now. Isn't that mysterious?

Lynn Margulis writes:

Duesberg's paper caused such an uproar in the medical research community that it led to rewriting of the rules for submission by members of their own scientific articles for the PNAS [note: that would be the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences--Dean]. His questions are still valid. Lives are at stake. We find the paucity of evidence published in standard peer-reviewed primary scientific journals that leads to the conclusion that "HIV causes AIDS" appalling. No amount of moralizing censorship, rhetorical tricks, consensus of opinion, pulling rank, obfuscation, ad hominem attacks or blustering newspaper editorials changes this fact. The conflation "HIV-AIDS" may be good marketing but is it science? No. Yet certainly the political and economic implications of the term "HIV-AIDS" are staggering. (See Harper's March 2006 article "Out of Control" by Celia Farber).

Peter Duesberg continues his splendid 35-year research career at the University of California at Berkeley where, since 1986 he has been a member of the National Academy of Sciences and hence, eligible to publish any of his own scientific work. Although his government research funds (like ours, on a far smaller scale) were cut from $350,000 per year to zero, he continues investigations into the cause of cancer with work on aneuploidy.

Harvey Bialy's book may be hard at times for readers with little or no background in this arcane science, but its riveting narrative documents the troubling censorship and punishment of a tenacious scientist seeking answers. Unjustifiably labelled "denialists", "homophobes", "charlatans", or "Nazis", Bialy and Duesberg are foremost excellent scientists who follow David Bohm's adage "Science is the search for truth, whether we like it or not". It strains credulity to ascribe any other motivation to their stance.

"Cancer keeps more people alive than it kills" claimed a colleague who compared the ample federal budget for cancer research to that for "exobiology" i.e., all NASA's life sciences investigation except manned spaceflight. Bialy's "aneuploidy" in the title of his superb account of the state of life science funding refers to Duesberg's turn of attention to the concept that "genes cause cancer". Peculiar genes, touted to be responsive to other genes that reverse their action are called "oncogenes". (As "onco.." refers to tumors, oncology is the study of cancer.) The other genes, to which oncogenes are responsive are called tumor-suppressor genes. Voilá, the onco.. gene causes the tumor, add the suppressor gene and the tumor disappears. This sort of facile equivocal language added to the universally agreed upon fact: tumor cells are aneuploid with high frequency, led Duesberg to pursue not prizes, just scientific truths.

Cells, in their nuclei, in the bodies of animals and plants are "diploid". Nearly all of the billions of cells contain two sets of chromosomes. In humans the distinctive staining bodies, the chromosomes (made of protein and DNA) are present in pairs: 23 pairs to a total of 46 where one member of a pair is inherited from the mother and the other member from the father. Diploid here means "normal". When sperm are made in men's testes and eggs are produced in the ovaries of women the number of chromosomes per cell is halved such that the sex cells have only a single set. They are haploid, also normal. Fertilization (23+23=46) restores the number to the fertile egg that becomes the embryo. Aneuploidy refers to abnormalities, excursions from either haploidy or diploidy: 47 chromosomes, broken small extra chromosomes, etc. Cancer cells are aneuploid. Tumors form in the body at sites of chemical (nicotine, lungs) or mechanical (metal plates) irritation. The cells in those tumors tend to aneuploidy, all different kinds of aneuploidy that become more extreme as the tumor cells proliferate. Duesberg begins with these observations in his recent cancer research and ignores the kind of nonsense that Bialy exposes.

In Bialy's "Hoofbeats on the road to the prize" (chapter 2) Bialy quotes an article by R.A. Weinberg, "The action of oncogenes in the cytoplasm and nucleus that summarized years of work and cost enormous amounts of money:

"This review attempts to synthesize much of the currently available data on these issues. It is written with the belief that much of the information about oncogenes will eventually be understandable in terms of a small number of mechanisms and that the outlines of some of these are gradually becoming apparent." Science 230:770-776 (1985)

And Bialy, who supports Duesberg's contention that there is as little evidence for oncogenes as there is that HIV causes AIDS, comments: "Even for those who have raised equivocal language to new standards, the escape clause in this [Weinberg's] last sentence is truly extraordinary. With promises like these it is not surprising that twenty years later we are still waiting for the first biochemical pathway whose disruption by ...a [point or otherwise] mutated oncogene or genes is necessary, let alone sufficient, "for the crud to get its start"(Bialy, p. 47).

As both Bialy and Duesberg emphasize, let us see the research results of those who show that cancer is "caused by an oncogene" and that "AIDS is caused by the rapidly mutating HIV virus". Please point us to the published evidence.

Professor Margulis's complete review can be read right here, along with, you will notice, positive reviews from quite a few other prominent scientists.

Oh, and in case you were deeply impressed when well-known scientific fraud (yes, I said "fraud"--the man has no business being allowed anywhere near a research lab) issued a supposed list of "errors" in the Harper's article listed above, be sure to read this before getting snowed.

What I find most fascinating about all this is the reaction of the mainstream media, which is supposedly so objective and so committed to neutrality. So why have they gotten away with, for over 20 years, covering only one side of the story? Where's that vaunted journalistic "objectivity" they supposedly teach in journalism school?

By the way, more on professor Margulis and her extraordinary background right here. It would not be surprising in the least if at some point she wins the Nobel prize. She certainly deserves one for having turned the world of evolutionary biology on its head (and for having taken much abuse for it until everyone finally grudgingly acknowledged that she was right).

Even though Harvey and I often disagree with each other on some matters of style as well as substance, I continue to recommend his book Oncogenes, Aeneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life & Times of Peter Duesberg to anyone with at least an undergraduate degree in biology. If nothing else, you'll walk away for the first time with a full understanding of what one side of the war looks like. Or, actually, two wars: the war over whether so-called "oncogenes" are the primary mechanism of carcinogenesis, and whether or not HIV and HIV alone explains what we see of AIDS.

You may also find yourself wondering how the government has managed to pour tens of billions of dollars into funding both hypotheses over the last 30 years and produced so very little as a result. How really? Because a tight little clique, good-ole boy network controls all the funding, approving each other's grants in a semi-secret, opaque, phoney-baloney "peer review" process where they get to censor and refuse funding for anyone who questions their cherished theories--and as a bonus, they get to put on halos, act like this all makes them saints, and how dare you question them, you little peon taxpayer you?!?!?

So they get to keep all the grant money, testing kit patents, and drug patents for themselves. And don't answer to anyone except each other. It's despicable, it really is. And it won't get better until the general public--you know, those of us actually paying the taxes that pay for their research grants--demands better transparency and better accountability.

When is the National Academy of Sciences finally going to get off its duff and demand answers to this and other cases of scientific chicanery, bluster, and bullying?

Update: Hank's got more thoughts on the matter.

I was reading the fascinating debate at BMJ's Rapid Responses (hat tip to Sandi) and came across the following suggestion by a layman, Carl Williams:

As I understand it the so-called ‘dissident’ theories of what HIV is, or isn’t, are varied on this point, but there appears to be one clear distinction between dissident and orthodox theories, and that is that all dissident theories assume that HIV is not a new exogenous retrovirus. Therefore HIV, or at least a positive HIV antibody test, or PCR amplification of ‘gag’, ‘env’ and ‘pol’ sequences should in principle have been present in much earlier blood sera.

My lack of a scientific education may let me down at this point as I don’t know how practically possible this may be to accomplish, but I would suggest that researchers examine stored blood samples from all over the world, from as far back as possible (from people who were in varying degrees of health) and test those samples using the modern test kits that according to Tony Floyd are 100% sensitive and specific (or at least approaching that degree of accuracy), to see what happens. Of course such testing should be totally blinded with the use of modern day control samples so that no claims can be made that assumptions are built into the outcomes. If there prove to be no positive results from these older samples, then surely the theory that HIV is anything but new would be disproved and conversely if there were positive results then perhaps we should look into why this so and how this effects our understanding of the role of HIV in modern day disease progression.

Now that's just brilliant. But here's my own dumb question: If HIV is an old virus that does no harm, why don't normal people with good health (like myself) have it too? In other words, why don't healthy people test positive?

Richard Johnson, in yesterday's New York Post, ran a terrific piece on Celia's recently-published book, Serious Adverse Events. Even such noteworthy names in AIDS activism as Larry Kramer have given it their blessing. Johnson's take on it was classic though:

Celia Farber, the maverick author of "Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS," is having the last laugh on the medical-industrial complex that's trying to destroy her. Farber, part of an insurgent group which distrusts most of the research done on AIDS, was attacked earlier this year after Harper's published a comprehensive article she wrote on the subject. A pharmaceutical-promoting organization in South Africa called TAC (Treatment Action Campaign) spearheaded the attack and composed a manifesto claiming Farber's story contained at least 56 errors. But now another group, Rethinking AIDS, has released a rebuttal finding "no serious errors." Farber tells Page Six, "There was one error, actually, that was brought to my attention by a clock collector. I likened the drug-promoting activists to cuckoo birds sprung from grandfather clocks, but grandfather clocks have pendulums. I regret the error."

It's becoming increasingly obvious that sloppy science and outright pseudoscience have dominated AIDS "research" and mainstream journalism's coverage of same for far too long. It is the orthodox view of AIDS, not the skeptical view, that has continually foundered against failed predictions and empty promises, that has grown weaker over time and not stronger. I'm glad to see more people in the mainstream press and the scientific community willing to take notice.

Didn't realize that my correspondent was banned from Dean's World earlier. I've deleted the earlier post I had and will repost if he can provide proof for the central assertion.

To be honest, I am dumbfounded at the reaction I received from my earlier (and probably ill-advised) foray into the HIV debate. What I thought was an easy pitch to the HIV-skeptic camp devolved into a total farce.

One commentator insists that the HIV-causation camp must definitively prove that HIV does NOT cause AIDS before the question of whether drugs DO cause AIDS can be even broached. Others insist that "drugs" and "causation" are terms too broad to be pinned down. Another would rewind the clock to 1984 for the burden of proof. In all these cases, the agenda is clear - they are not interested in promoting the drugs causation theory as an alternative, but they want to see the HIV causation theory destroyed utterly, first. In a way, they have the same attitude that they accuse the HIV-traditionalists of having; they don't want to engage the debate on the scientific merits, but want a playing field cleared of opponents.

Well, should they succeed, my theory of Democrat-spit-causation has equal weight as theirs, in the absence of experiments that prove drug causation. I still believe that given Dr. Duesberg's record of achievements, experiments MUSt have been described. I have emailed him directly and will report back what he says.

I have another question for the HIV-skeptics. I don't expect any better response than last time, but I had always intended to ask it of them, so I will complete the fact-finding mission I embarked on (and yes, if I receive an answer from Dr. Duesberg, I'll ask it of him as well.)

That question is, Can you, as a skeptic of the HIV-causation theory, describe an experiment whose results would convince you that HIV is indeed the causal agent?

I've been carrying on an email conversation with Dean and Scott about the HIV issue. First off I'd just like to say that IMHO Dean's efforts at challenging the HIV-AIDS hypothesis here are noble ones, because he approaches it the way that all laymen should: the science is not mysterious, it isn't innaccessible, it's not the work of beings beyond our mortal ken. It's just science, and anyone can take it and read it and think about it. Promoting that attitude towards science is important and far too few people have the self-confidence to even make the attempt.

I still remain a skeptic of the skeptics. I won't go into why - after Dean and I conclude our conversation then we both will try to post on it. After all, until we are done I won't know whether I will be a sketic or a skeptic^2 or not :) But I want to simply ask a question in good faith - and hoping that some of the HIV skeptics (like Dr. Bialy) will also respond.

I understand that Dr. Duesberg has hypothesized that drug use causes AIDS (in America and Europe). My question is, what specific experiments does Dr. Duesberg propose to test this hypothesis?

The Business, an influential and respected weekly British publication, notes something startling going on in India:

Citing India as an example, he said that if it did not change its policies, it would soon have the highest HIV/Aids tally in the world. By last year that had already happened, according to Richard Feacham, head of the Geneva-based Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the main beneficiary of the Product RED initiative.

"The epidemic is growing very rapidly. It is out of control," Feachem said in Paris. "There is nothing happening in India today that is big or serious enough to prevent it." India had to wake up, because without action, "millions and millions and millions are going to die."

That is not the view of Anju Singh, of JACKINDIA, a Delhi-based Aids policy study group. Singh, chief guest at the Bangalore convention, told The Business last week that "there are no reports – not even anecdotal ones – that reflect visible proof of an epidemic in this country." The official estimate for HIV infections is around 5m; but a dearth of Aids cases – averaging 10,000 a year over the past 10 years - suggests that is grossly wrong.

Nor has there been any abnormal increase in death rates, even in suspected "high risk groups" such as red light areas. The Indian government does not publish data for Aids deaths; but "questions we got asked in Parliament have elicited a cumulative figure of 1,100." When UNAIDS published a figure of 310,000 Aids deaths in India in 1999 alone, and a cumulative total of 558,000 Aids orphans, JACKINDIA challenged them publicly. In late 2001 the figures were withdrawn – but only after being used earlier that year to project the state of the epidemic in India at the UN General Assembly Special Session on HIV/Aids in New York.

"For years now, agencies like the CIA, World Bank, UNDP, UNAIDS, a plethora of NGOs as well as articles published in respected science journals have been talking of an exploding epidemic in India, and Africa-like conditions," Singh said. "We have consistently challenged the agencies that claim India is underplaying figures and is in denial; none of them has been able to provide any alternative data or evidence to substantiate their claims."

You can read the whole thing here.

Jonathan Fishbein receives still further vindication, and those of us who hope to see the NIH/CDC machine further exposed to public scrutiny see reason for hope.

Well, my little posting yesterday certainly seems to have made the rounds. I'm still catching up on my mail but in addition to the folks from Harper's, I also got this note yesterday from the folks at Honest Doctor:

Dean,

Your post today on Accountability in Government Funded Research was sublime. Great job. And if you see the front page article in the WSJ today, it lends further credence how things have gotten out of hand. The South African government actually provides an incentive for people to get ill by giving out stipends if you show evidence of debilitating illness. So there are reports of considerable people contracting HIV purposely and not taking their ARVs purposely in order to qualify for that grant. I guess this is the last resort for many unemployed/impoverished people who have no other way to feed their kids.

What this suggests is that the HIV enterprise is one great big welfare program – for universities, doctors, pharma, NGO’s, and now, Africa’s poor.