Against the evidence

Richard Wilson on the crucial difference between doubt and dogmatism

By Richard Wilson Published 18 September 2008

Throughout the 1960s, the tobacco industry famously spent millions promoting a small group of vociferous "sceptics" who, in the face of overwhelming evidence, continued to deny the link between smoking and cancer. The strategy paid off. Long after a clear scientific consensus had emerged, much of the public still believed that the case remained unproven.

In a sceptical age, even those disseminating wholly bogus ideas - from corporate pseudo-science to 9/11 conspiracy theories - will often seek to appropriate the language of rational inquiry. But there is a meaningful difference between being a "sceptic" and being in denial. The genuine sceptic forms his beliefs through a balanced evaluation of the evidence. The sceptic of the bogus variety cherry-picks evidence on the basis of a pre-existing belief, seizing on data, however tenuous, that supports his position, and yet declaring himself "sceptical" of any evidence, however compelling, that undermines it.

While it is easy to guess the motivations of an industry-funded scientist denying the dangers posed by his commercial sponsor, or a far-right historian expressing "scepticism" about the Holocaust, other cases are more puzzling. It is difficult to explain why, for example, a respected academic would dismiss the mountain of proof that HIV causes Aids. But several have, notably the Berkeley virologist Peter Duesberg.

HIV is a type of "retrovirus". Duesberg has argued for decades that retroviruses rarely, if ever, harm their hosts. Rather than modify this theory in the light of evidence that one such virus was killing millions, Duesberg in the late 1980s announced his "scepticism" about that evidence, and has stuck to his guns ever since.

Early on, these ideas found a receptive audience among HIV sufferers, desperate for an alternative prognosis. The cause was later taken up by conspiracy theorists convinced that Aids was a money-spinning fabrication of the global pharmaceutical industry.

In South Africa, at the beginning of this decade, Aids scepticism gained currency with a political class dismayed at the prices being charged for life-saving medicines. Under the influence of Duesberg and his fellow "dissidents", Thabo Mbeki's government chose to delay for several years public provision of anti-HIV drugs. The economist Nicoli Nattrass estimates that this decision - made amid one of the world's worst Aids epidemics - may already have cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

Bogus scepticism does not centre on an impartial search for the truth, but on a no-holds-barred defence of a preconceived ideological position. The bogus sceptic is thus, in reality, a disguised dogmatist, made all the more dangerous for his success in appropriating the mantle of the unbiased and open-minded inquirer.

Richard Wilson's "Don't Get Fooled Again" is out now, published by Icon Books (£12.99)

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

191 comments

Tue, 2012-09-04 04:08 — abkjastk (not verified)

fhkxfep

Mon, 2008-10-13 21:39 — Sfran001

The last sentence of that Lancet abstract means that
27 deaths after one year of ART out of the 1,232
people that started ART in 95/96 (rate of 2.2%) is not
statistically significantly less than 25 deaths after one
year of ART out of the 1,932 people that started ART
in 2002/3 (rate of 1.3%). What you've been told about
the study by the denier liars is bullshit.

As for Bauer's list, the rational world understands that
those individuals had a potentially fatal viral infection.
The deniers who died had, according to them and
their fellow denier liars, no cause to be dying young
from diseases that occur only in the setting of severe T
cell immunodeficiency.

Bauer also has no idea whether the people on his list
ever took ART, some never did. Kiyoshi was using
intermittent ART, before the SMART study showed that
the inflammation caused by viral load rebounds
during treatment interruption is associated with a
significant elevation in the risk of disease and death.

http://www.aegis.com/news/bar/2000/BR000201.html

"At the end of my most recent structured treatment
interruption [my CD4 count] was higher than it has
been in 10 years," he said. "It suggests, in my case
anyway, that viral rebounds are diminished and I
achieve viral control very rapidly after ending my
treatment interruption."

Kuromiya acknowledged, "You can't draw conclusions
from the small size of the studies" presented at the
conference but "a lot of us don't have the luxury of
waiting." He believes that if the interruption is well
monitored, "there haven't been any dangers that we
don't already know about."

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/22/2283

Mon, 2008-10-13 22:33 — Sfran001

Thanks for the excellent demonstration of the vapid
idiocy that constitutes AIDS denial. It would be
authoritarian to deny people the opportunity to
independently verify the misinformation being
promoted by liars like you. Deniers like to spread their
lies unchallenged. You've just shown what you think is
the evidence that this is a "goof up" and not only have
you not understood it, you've not even read the
papers.

Mon, 2008-09-22 18:21 — David11113

Hmmm....
Andrew, you say my post (798 words) was "long", only to put in a 1341-word long response of your own. I wouldn't have minded how long it was really, but it just seems as though you just want to ramble on about Rumsfeld, Bush, Reagan, Bird Flu and Viagra. (I hope Macdonald doesn't read your comment though, he's already worked up enough about "conspiracies" as it is)

I guess you did give a fleeting reference to something to do with HIV though, one of the effective new drug combinations. For your future reference, it is spelt ATRIPLA. That's with only one "i".

I must say it looks like all the gang's here now.....
esteemed "HIV rethinkers" like Michael Ellner, David Crowe, Christine (Maggiore I assume), and now Andrew Maniotis. All we need now is the Perth group and Richard can shout "Full house!"

I am sorry in a way there are not any "famous" HIV scientists here to refute all your comments - you'll just have to make do with little old me. I guess most of the medics and scientists actually have day jobs, and are too busy doing what they do best - saving lives and helping discover how to beat this virus - to come here to debate you all.

There is no attempt to "silence" the deniers, Macdonald. The scientists view is that debating them merely lends their views a modicum of false legitimacy. And it never worth the effort - As the saying goes - "Don't bother wrestling with a pig. You only get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

Mon, 2008-09-22 18:47 — RichardWilson

David,

Many thanks for your comments - and for those excellent links. I found the article at http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm particularly clear and interesting, and would recommend that others read it to get some wider context on this issue. I should say that I have also found the AIDStruth website to be a very good source of information, and haven't as yet found any evidence to back up the negative view of it that some commenters here appear to have.

Whereas Duesberg does at least have a track record of being an actual, real-life virologist, I'm struck by the extent to which commenters here have wanted to cite Papadopulos-Eleopulos as some sort of credible authority. The evidence I've seen - including a court case in Australia where she appears to have been debarred from acting as an AIDS expert on the basis of the fact that she is not, in fact, an expert - would seem to suggest otherwise. And as you rightly point out, her views appear directly to contradict Duesberg's in any case.

Christine, if you do not believe on the basis of current evidence that HIV tests are reliable, then I'm sure that there is nothing I could offer that would convince you otherwise, however high the reward.

Richard

Fri, 2008-09-26 20:31 — Photonaut

Richard Wilson... for shame... I guess you also lament the passing of the good old days when mass was read in Latin, & those who tried to translate the Bible were burnt at the stake. All power to the priests in white coats, eh?

Guys, I think it's time to declare a TKO - it's a heart-rending sight when a palooka is so punch-drunk that he doesn't know it's over, & keeps flailing wildly at thin air.

Mon, 2008-11-03 09:26 — Andrew Maniotis

On June 5th, 1981, the first article about AIDS in the medical literature, "Pneumocystis Pneumonia--Los Angeles," appeared in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (vol. 30, pp. 250-52), by Dr. Michael Gottlieb and colleagues of University of California at Los Angeles [1].

Gottlieb and colleagues detailed the five case studies, noting the commonalities among the cases, such as sexual preference and quick development of a rare form of pneumonia. All five patients were previously healthy individuals who had laboratory-confirmed cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection within five months of PCP diagnosis and candida mucosal infection (http://www.infectiousdiseasenews.com/200606/discovery.asp).

The following are summarized excerpts of the patient’s symptoms written in the original MMWR case reports, in which it was noted that 100% of the patients exhibited cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections:

* Patient 1: A 33-year-old man developed PCP and oral mucosal candidiasis in March 1981, after two months of fever that was associated with elevated liver enzymes, leucopenia and CMV viruria. The patient’s condition declined despite treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), pentamidine and acyclovir. He died on
May 3.

* Patient 2: A 30-year-old man developed PCP in April 1981 after five months of fever associated with elevated liver enzymes, CMV viruria and seroconversion to CMV. In addition, he had leucopenia and mucosal candidiasis. PCP responded to treatment with intravenous TMP-SMX, however he continued to have fevers.

* Patient 3: A 30-year-old man developed esophageal and oral candidiasis around January 1981. He was treated with amphotericin B and responded well. In February, he was hospitalized for PCP that responded to treatment with oral TMP-SMX. Esophageal candidiasis reoccurred and he was retreated with amphotericin B. Biopsy showed he was positive for CMV.

Fri, 2008-09-26 21:47 — MacDonald

Lol Photonaut!

It seems Mr. Wilson has forgotten not only that he doesn't know my background, but also that his own preferred argument was epidemiological rather than (micro)biological

Mr. Wilson,

My primary claims here were on the quality and integrity of your scholarship.

Tue, 2008-12-16 15:24 — RichardWilson

Many thanks for those thoughts, amiloeagle. This is now something of an old thread, and I not sure there will be that many people reading it, but I've just posted a new article on my website about the interesting parallels between AIDS denial and Holocaust denial:
http://richardwilsonauthor.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/the-parallels-betwee...

Mon, 2008-09-22 19:45 — Carter

I have a very good book recommendation for Mr. Wilson; The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory.... http://failingsofhivaidstheory.homestead.com/
Not too many apologists such as yourself, or the multitude of mislead orthodox scientists can refute any of his work. But I doubt you have any real interest in understanding what the truth is judging from you complete mental incapacity to understand logic.