I hope the suit is successful but as the "wack-a-mole" game that gets played with creationists demonstrates, false beliefs don't die - they just get rebranded.
True. But if they can at least get some of these so-called "alternative cures" outlawed, it's a big step forward.
I'm fairly new to this whole "AIDS denial" farce. I've stayed around East Asia, and South East Asia, and currently reside and work in Australia, and have never heard of AIDS denial in the many places I've been, including Europe, which I think is a good sign, as denying HIV as the causal agent for AIDS is very irresponsible and borders to that of atrocious acts as it will work against all work done to stop the spread of the disease.
Can you pls give me a short crash course and background of this hokus pokus??
regards
Viji Tan
Viji,
Some places to check out include Virus Myth, which includes essays by noted HIV denialists such as Peter Duesberg, and Alive and Well, Christine Maggiore's website (you can search this blog for my other posts on her). Unfortunately, while many of her arguments are simply Duesberg's claims recycled, they are catching on, particularly in California (including such HIV hotspots as San Francisco).
Mr Mbeki's stance on HIV/AIDS, is definitely not one of South Africa's prouder moments.
Running a country where mortuaries, Cemetries and funeral parlours cannot keep up with the work load thanks to the spread of HIV, and still taking such an unscientific aproach. It boggles my mind.
For the sake of those dying by the false hope they have been given I pray the lawsuit is succesful.
I know it's not popular to mention these things, but the editor of The Lancet (John Horgan), the past editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (Marcia Agnell), and the past editor of the British Medical Journal (Richard Smith) have each made very clear statements about the role that pharmaceutical money and marketing play in the editorial process of medical science publishing.
These are eminently qualified people to be comment on these matters; it does tend to shake one's confidence in the science publishing process. The current issue with Science having two papers from Woo Suk Hwang retracted, despite the co-authoring of Gerald Schatten etc. is a fine example of how collegial the collective back-slapping is in the business.
That said, the TAC's legal action in SA may well be interesting: we've not yet seen a legal case that considers the issue of personal choice in AIDS heathcare. It's quite condescending to suggest that South Aficans are incapable of making their own decision about whether or not to take anti-retrovirals. They are toxic. There's no debate about that. And while vitamins may not be a defence against a retrovirus, as surprising as it sounds, they are a help against the multiple opportunistic diseases brought on by AIDS infection. The case for many of those who are ill and dying in SA and across Africa is that they already have malaria and/or tuburculosis, and subsist in conditions of degraded health. They need clean water, access to healthcare, and improved diets.
The AIDS establishment itself continues to be baffled by the virus. No doubt, we need to support research. But Pharma is paying for that research by insisting that African countries offer their dugs to its citizens (drugs that failed FDA trials in the US and cannot be sold here), and they fund organizations like TAC, whose leader, Zachie Achmat, seems convinced that the ONLY way SA will ever pull herself out of poverty and ill-health is to embrace the Pharma industry.
It's not as simple as conspiracy theory vs. Big Bad Pharma. But if one accepts that cronyism is rife between scientific journals and Pharma, and one accepts that one toxic pill is hardly the salvation that South Africa needs, and one accepts that Africa is the scene of much untoward pharmaceutical marketing practices... it raises more questions than can be answered on your blog, I'm afraid.
At least have a read of this Guardian (UK) article about Richard Smith's position regarding Pharma and medical publishing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/
i...1517194,00.html
Best,
Kirkdale
Kirkdale,
I don't have time to address all your strawmen. First, no one is suggesting that South Africans "are incapable of making their own decision about whether or not to take anti-retrovirals." No one is trying to force drugs on them. This is about not lying to patients, which is what the HIV-deniers in both SA and the US do. Pure and simple.
No one is saying they can't receive vitamins, either. Especially in impoverished areas, sure, vitamins can make a lot of difference. Look at how vitamin A has saved lives. But vitamins are not a cure-all, and should not be marketed as such.
Finally, I really hate it when people suggest how "big pharma" pays for everything. They don't. Much HIV research is funded by the government and private foundations, which receive no booty from HIV drugs in Africa or elsewhere. Additionally, your scenario has quite a lot of "ifs" and conditions that I simply don't accept nor advocate. "If" one accepts that cronyism is rife between scientific journals and Pharma"--which I don't--and if "one accepts that one toxic pill is hardly the salvation that South Africa needs"--which I doubt anyone has ever suggested--and if "one accepts that Africa is the scene of much untoward pharmaceutical marketing practices"--maybe, I don't know enough of the background here to comment intelligently, only to get to a conclusion of "it raises more questions than can be answered on your blog."
I think that's rather obvious, don't you think? 
Nevertheless, I think you make a lot of assumptions that aren't warranted, and are making strawmen characterizations of positions and false dichotomies all over the place (water, food and improved healthcare instead of HIV drugs--why not both, and more?)
Few epidemic diseases can be effectively addressed through a single approach. In the case of HIV/AIDS, as Tara Smith argues, the required resources include clean water, nutritious diet, improved health care and broad health care access, and HIV pharmaceuticals. To that list we can add safe housing, educated communities, availability of low risk employment, anti-discrimination legislation, responsible media coverage, and active watchdog groups like TAC. A tall order, one that few nations will be able to achieve. What is NOT needed is a government, like Thabo Mbecki's in South Africa, that willfully persists in asserting a single simplistic position on the epidemic and aggressively impedes efforts to explore and pursue proven social and scientific solutions.
thanks for sharing!
tell the denialists to inject themselves with blood tested positive for hiv antibodies.
advice for hiv positives, talk to long time diagnosed hiv positive people. get facts right.
duesberg and maggiore and others are in denial of everything.
There are lots of HIV positive people who are living healthily and w/o the help of the toxic ARVs.
Why do you think Dr Duesberg will risk his career and fortune by making an alternative explanation and thereby debunking the AIDS dogma? Because he believes in it.
Why do you think a lot of doctors and even some so-called "SCIENTISTS" continue to peddle the AIDS dogma? Even if they haven't studied retroviruses as long as Dr Duesberg dig? Even Dr. Gallo considered Dr Duesberg as one of the best in his field.
Everybody wants solutions and answers to this "HIV/AIDS" problem. But to label those with alternative views on the prevailing AIDS dogma as denialists, even to the extent of being compared to holocaust denialists is wrong. Science is about proving a theory wrong as it is about proving it right.
Research should continue nonetheless. But it doesn't have to continue in the same and ONLY path it has treaded since 1984 -- that HIV causes AIDS. Research involving other causation of AIDS should also be funded, given attention to and pushed NOT stiffled, cursed and shoved away.
No wonder after 25years we still know nothing about this "super-cunning" virus that evaded thousands of scientists, billions of taxpayers money and millions of lives lost. Not to mention lives lost to toxic drugs. Why is that?
.....because everybody is falling in line with the orthodox views and nobody is funding research towards alternative views.
Commenting by HaloScan
