Scrub-a-dub-dub, because you’ve been called out

First and foremost, Happy New Year. Here’s to another year of giving you bits of stuff to mentally nibble on as you go about your day. Now, on with 2015…

Remember Peter Doshi, PhD? He’s the “Hopkins Researcher” non-epidemiologist who claims to know more about influenza than epidemiologists, virologists, and other people who have made influenza research their life’s work. He’s presented on influenza at a conference sponsored by an anti-vaccine organization. And, as I told you before, he signed a letter from the “AIDS Rethinkers” stating that the HIV-AIDS association should be, well, “rethought”. It’s nothing more than AIDS denialism dressed as “skepticism.”

Anyway, Dr. Steven Salzberg, who is a Hopkins researcher, took Peter Doshi, PhD, to task:

“First, as has already pointed out, Doshi is not a virologist or an epidemiologist, but rather an anthropologist who studies comparative effectiveness research. He never conducted influenza research at Hopkins. (He’s now an Assistant Professor at the University of Maryland’s School of Pharmacy.) Second, Doshi’s 2013 article was an opinion piece (a “feature”), not an original research article, and it did not report any new findings. Third, it is highly misleading to suggest (as the anti-vax article’s title does) that Doshi somehow represents Johns Hopkins University. At Johns Hopkins Hospital, the flu vaccine is required of all personnel who have contact with patients, as a good-practices effort to minimize the risk that a patient will catch the flu from a caregiver.”

That’s not all, however. Dr. Salzberg asked Peter Doshi, PhD, about signing that AIDS denialist letter:

“Perhaps even more disturbing is that Doshi signed a petition arguing that the HIV virus is not the cause of AIDS, joining the ranks of HIV denialists. He signed this statement while still a graduate student, so I contacted him to ask if he still doubted the link between HIV and AIDS. I also asked him if he supports flu vaccination, if he agrees with the anti-vaccine movement’s use of his statements, and if he believes the flu is a serious public health threat.

On the question of signing the HIV/AIDS petition, Doshi responded that “Seeing how my name was published and people have misconstrued this as some kind of endorsement, I have written the list owner and asked for my name to be removed.” He declined to state directly that he agrees that the HIV virus causes AIDS—though I gave him ample opportunity.”

I, too, emailed Peter Doshi, PhD, a while back (October 2013) and asked this:

“I was recently informed that you have taken the position of associate editor with the British Medical Journal. While doing some research on your work, and seeing what influence you have and will have on evidence-based medical practice, I came upon a website ( which lists you as a signatory to a statement denying the existence of a causal relationship between HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) and AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome).

I hope you can see how “AIDS denialism” may put into question your judgment of medical and scientific findings submitted for review at BMJ. My questions to you, if I may have a few minutes of your time, are:

– Did you sign that HIV/AIDS statement denying the existence of a causal relationship between the virus and the disease?
– Are you in fact now an associate editor at BMJ?

I extend you much gratitude for taking a moment to answer these questions.”

He never replied, though I never received a notice that the email was not delivered, and I copied him on all known emails he’s used on publications.

On that website, his name was listed thus, a few names under Australian anti-vaccine loon, Meryl Dorey:

Screen Shot 2013-10-04 at 8.41.45 PM

The list looks like this today:

Screen Shot 2014-12-27 at 7.19.17 PM

No more Peter Doshi on the list. It appears that he did as he said he would to Dr. Salzberg and asked that his name be removed. The thing about that page is that it is querying the list from an external database, so we can’t use the “Way Back Machine” or Google to his name when it used to be there. All we have are these screenshots, but, as you can see on Dr. Salzberg’s blog post, Peter Doshi, PhD, never denied signing that letter. (To be a “signatory” you have to contact the list’s administrator, apparently.)

So there you have it. An associate editor at the British Medical Journal has scrubbed his name from a list of AIDS denialists. Do with that what you want. He also doesn’t think the flu is a big deal, so do with that what you want. From Dr. Salzberg’s blog post:

“As for the flu itself, Doshi says “I don’t agree with CDC’s portrayal of influenza as a major public health threat.” So he and I have a serious disagreement there. I asked if he agrees with the anti-vaccinationists who are using his writings to claim that the flu vaccine is ineffective, and he replied that while “ineffective” is “too sweeping,” he has found ”no compelling evidence of hospitalization and mortality reduction in [the] elderly.””

As an epidemiologist doing research into infectious diseases, I will not submit anything to the BMJ for publication for the foreseeable future. I just don’t trust their judgment anymore when they have as an associate editor someone who seems to deny that AIDS is the result of an HIV infection (something 99.999999999% of scientists have agreed on and on whose authority antiretroviral therapy has saved lives) and definitely doesn’t see influenza as a major public health threat. I can only imagine what would happen to any manuscripts I submit on infectious disease.

One more thing…

The HIV “Rethinkers” write thus on their page:

“The next time the media announce that tens of millions of people are dying from Hiv in Africa, ask them how they know that. Remind them that journalists are supposed to question dubious assertions from powerful, drug-industry funded agencies like the WHO, not parrot them as if they were indisputable. Ask them why they report these numbers as if they were actual Aids cases, when in fact they are projections made by WHO’s computer programs, based on very questionable statistical methodologies and contradicted by many facts including the continual large population increases experienced in the countries supposedly worst affected.”

Note the part about the media.

This is what is written on Peter Doshi’s page at his current job with the University of Maryland:

“Doshi also has strong interests in journalism as a vehicle for encouraging better practice and improving the research enterprise.”

Yeah, it should be the reporters that guide the science, not the other way around. Not.

Just in time for Halloween, an anti-vaccine “expert” rises like a zombie

I was looking through the blog’s stats the other day, and I found out that a ton of people were checking out the post about Peter Doshi, PhD. You know the one? The one where I explain to you that Peter Doshi, PhD is not an epidemiologist and how his attempt at epidemiology, at explaining to his audience that the flu is not that bad and that flu deaths were not really flu deaths, how all of that was pretty goddamn awful. Well, his screeds are back, and the anti-vaccine and conspiracy theory websites are plastering it all over the place. Lucky for humanity that people are skeptical about his claims, go and Google his name, and come to this blog.

Some of the most recent visitors are coming over from a blog called IO9. They are coming over specifically from a post by Tara Haelle about the myths and facts about the flu vaccine. It’s a good post. My only objection to it is the number of myths she’s trying to debunk all at once. There’s a lot of them, and blog readers are usually TL;DR kind of people. Keep it snappy and keep it short, says the guy who once wrote a 6,000-plus blog post on diabetes. Someone in the comments mentioned an article by Peter Doshi, PhD. It’s the same article from years back, but it has been resurrected, like a zombie, to try and scare people away from the flu vaccine.

I’m glad that so many are skeptical of Peter Doshi, PhD, and I truly hope that someone asks him about the AIDS denialist bit in his history. After all, we wouldn’t want a current professor at the University of Maryland and associate editor at the BMJ being an AIDS denialist, do we? It would be a little bit bad for science. So thanks for the natural news whackaloons for resurrecting Peter Doshi’s article from last year. It’s always fun to deal with zombies.

Happy Halloween! And don't forget to get your flu shot!

“Scary” Peter Doshi, PhD (taken off the conspiracy website and altered a bit)

Why is HIV/AIDS so deadly?

FYI… This is the fifth of ten posts that have nothing to do with vaccines.

Once in a while, a new loon is pointed out to me, and I read their insanity. This is the story of such an occasion:

Why is HIV/AIDS so deadly? According to the World Health Organization, AIDS kills about 1.6 million people per year. We know what causes AIDS. We know that HIV infection can be prevented through safe sex, no sex, proper screening of the blood supply, administering drugs to HIV-positive people to lower their virus counts. We have very good screening tests to administer to people and make sure they get the care that they need. And we can explain all this to millions at a time through the use of all sorts of media.

So what gives?

The answer can be a little complicated. There are some political interests involved that misuse (or don’t use) the resources given to them to combat HIV/AIDS. There are also people in very high positions of authority who believe that the disease is a proper and just punishment for all sorts of “immoral” ways of being, e.g. homosexuality.

But there is also a group of people who believe that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, though they should know better. One of these people is Kelly Brogan, MD. According to her website, she received her medical degree from Cornell University and two science degrees from MIT. She did her residence in psychiatry and is board certified in it. With all that education, all those hours, days, weeks, and months invested in learning how to heal people, Dr. Kelly Brogan has some interesting thoughts on HIV and AIDS.

For example, women with HIV should not take drugs to reduce the chances of passing the virus on to their babies. Why? Because:

“This was the case with a now infamous, but little-publicized perinatal trial of the drug nevirapine for the prevention of transmission of HIV from mother to baby. An NIH-funded trial staged in Uganda, HIVNET 012, was hailed as demonstrating a 50% decrease in transmission, and set the stage for world-wide drug dissemination and coercion of women like Joyce Ann Hafford, to their death.”

UPDATE (9/25/14): It looks like Dr. Kelly Brogan has taken down her article. But here is Google cache to the rescue:

Dr. Kelly Brogan quotes a Harper’s Magazine author who seems to claim that there was no control (or placebo) group in that study. But there was a control group…

The HIVNET 012 trial was conducted in 1998 in Thailand, with some startling results:

“In February 1998, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial sponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Thailand of 393 mother/infant pairs showed that a short course of oral ZDV could reduce HIV-1 transmission by about 50% over a placebo—to an overall rate of 10%—in a non-breastfeeding population (CDC, UNAIDS, NIH, and NRS, 1998; Shaffer et al., 1999). 1 As a result, HIVNET 012 researchers formally dropped the placebo arms in a letter of amendment (known as Amendment I) to the protocol, and stopped enrollment on February 18, 1998.”

The study didn’t stop there, though:

“HIVNET 012 was redesigned and reopened on April 6, 1998—with approval of the Ugandan and U.S. institutional review boards—as a randomized, open-label, Phase IIB clinical trial.2 In this newly approved protocol, the target enrollment was 400 to 600 mother/infant pairs randomized in a 1:1 ratio. Women in the NVP arm of the trial would receive a single, oral 200-milligram dose of NVP at the onset of labor. Their infants would receive a single, oral 2-milligram-per-kilogram-of-body-weight dose of NVP suspension within 72 hours of birth. Women in the ZDV arm would receive 600 milligrams of oral ZDV at the onset of labor, followed by 300-milligram doses every 3 hours during labor. Their infants would receive oral 4-milligram-per-kilogram-of-body-weight doses of ZDV twice daily for the first 7 days of life. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals and GlaxoWellcome, respectively, donated the study drugs.

The HIVNET 012 protocol specified follow-up of mothers for adverse events for 6 weeks after delivery. Infants were followed for adverse events until 6 weeks of age, and for serious adverse events until 18 months of age. Researchers graded such events based on toxicity tables from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Division of AIDS (DAIDS) for neonates, children, and adults, ranging from grade 1 (mild) to grade 4 (life-threatening). The 1997 Study Specific Procedures manual included the DAIDS toxicity tables, as well as a special grading system for adverse experiences related to skin rashes and dermatitis and hemoglobin in mothers (Jackson et al., 1997). As the medications were given for a week or less, the study did not modify drug doses for toxicity.”

It wasn’t all without some issues, though, and the trial was adjusted again:

“Researchers amended the study protocol in February 2000 (Amendment II) in response to findings in other studies that some women could develop viral resistance to NVP, and that some children treated with various antiretroviral drugs in utero or perinatally could possibly experience mitochondrial toxicity. The modification entailed extending follow-up of women in the NVP arm and all children in the 18-month study to 5 years, with yearly evaluations for NVP resistance in women who had received NVP (HIVNET 012 Investigators, 2000).”

And what were the final results?

“The 1999 Lancet paper also analyzed adverse events and toxic effects based on the first 556 mother/infant pairs assigned to treatment with ZDV (279 pairs) and NVP (277 pairs). The authors reported that “the rates of maternal serious adverse events were similar in the two groups (4.4% in the ZDV group and 4.7% in the NVP group),” and that “the occurrence of clinical or laboratory abnormalities in mothers was similar in the two groups.” The authors also reported that for infants, “the rate of occurrence of serious adverse events in the two groups was similar up to the 18-month visit (19.8% in the ZDV group and 20.5% in the NVP group).” The “frequency and severity of laboratory-detected toxic effects … were similar in the two groups.”

The second Lancet paper (Jackson et al., 2003), reported that infants assigned to the NVP arm continued to have a significantly lower rate of HIV-1 infection and a significantly greater likelihood of HIV-1-free survival through 18 months of age (Table 2.2). Specifically, the efficacy of NVP compared with ZDV was 41%.”

The Institute of Medicine, and others, back the study’s findings. That Harper’s Magazine article? It was widely chided for its inaccuracies regarding the relationship between HIV and AIDS.

So why does Dr. Kelly Brogan see this study as a bad thing? And who is Joyce Ann Hafford?

Joyce Ann Hafford was a 33 year-old woman who died from liver failure from the medications she was being given as she participated in a drug research study. She was HIV-positive, and she enrolled in the research study in an attempt to keep her unborn child from being born with HIV. The whole thing was an enormous mess. Ms. Hafford started showing signs of toxicity from one of the drugs, but her healthcare providers apparently put the blame on her condition and not on the drugs. The National Institutes of Health eventually confirmed that it was most likely the drug.

These things happen. I won’t deny that medications, even the life-saving ones, all have risks. At a population level, antiretrovirals are saving lives, but everyone needs to be monitored for side-effects. At the individual level, there are those who need to be treated for side-effects. Not treating HIV will inevitably lead to AIDS in 99.999999999% of people who are infected. Treating it will cause side-effects in a very, very small percentage of people being treated. It’s about weighing the risks.

Perhaps because Dr. Kelly Brogan is not an epidemiologist and most of her training appears to be in psychiatry, Dr. Kelly Brogan seems to believe that all antiretroviral drugs are the ultimate evil, which fits well with her statements about medical science:

“This medical-scientific-industrial marriage has brought us many a meme that we hold on to societally, as truths:

That depression is a chemical imbalance

That cholesterol causes heart disease

That exposure to bugs equals deadly infection, and vaccines protection

Cancer is a genetic time bomb

That HIV causes AIDS, the equivalent of certain death”

She links her last statement, the one about HIV and AIDS, to a known AIDS denialism group. I’m not even going to touch her statements and blog posts on vaccines. (She thinks that herd immunity is fiction, apparently. Something that made my head explode.)

And there you have it. People continue to die from HIV/AIDS in part because people who should know better continue to perpetuate the idea that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, with variations to that theory. Some say that HIV is just a “passenger virus” and that it is an incidental finding with AIDS really being caused by the drugs used to treat HIV infection. Others say that HIV is a manufactured virus, aimed at homosexuals or at Africans, but still not a full-fledged cause for AIDS. And so on and so forth.

Without telling us her complete stance on the matter, Dr. Kelly Brogan certainly can seed some doubts in those who may not be initiated. But we are initiated, aren’t we, folks?

HIV leads to AIDS, plain and simple

FYI: This is the second of ten posts that will not be related with vaccines.

Back in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, there was a lot of scientific confusion as to what the relationship was between Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and a newly discovered retrovirus first known as HTLV-III and then renamed to HIV. Thirty-plus years and millions of dollars later, we have come to understand that HIV infection, if left untreated, progresses on to AIDS. We came to understand this because we observed people with HIV and people without it. Then we went one more step further and observed people infected with HIV who were treated and those who were not treated. We did these observations in real-world situations and also in controlled situations. We also did these observations in animal models.

All the evidence is there, and it is very clear that HIV causes AIDS.

Still, there are a group of people out there who honestly believe that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, that AIDS is the result of things other than HIV, or that neither HIV nor AIDS actually exist. (There are wilder theories than those, if that is possible, but I don’t have time for them.)

A few years ago, I came upon the comments of a man who has some “interesting” views of the relationship between HIV and AIDS. Here is the comment:

“Whether ORAC knows anything about medicine or science is unclear, but he knows NOTHING about how to conduct an investigation.

Having conducted thousands of criminal, civil and military investigations since 1980, it was clear from the onset that Deer’s so-called investigation resembled more of a hit-piece than a real investigation. As such, it was the perfect pretext for the kangaroo court known as the medical board review.

ORAC’s outrage is also telling. Since truth is the best defense in such cases, Deer’s defense should be extremely easy – unless, of course, he lied to destroy Dr. Wakefield’s career.

Because I have been involved in more than 100 criminal, civil and military cases involving medical and scientific incompetence since 2009, I am not at all impressed that ORAC is funded by the DoD, NCI or any other US government agency. And having recently cleared a US Marine of criminal charges by impeaching a top military infectious disease expert, I’d say that ORAC’s outrage is likely based upon his fear that he will be eventually be discovered as a charlatan as well.

If ORAC is telling the truth, nothing would preclude the use of his real name. The fact that he blogs on this pharmaceutical marketing website is telling.

Clark Baker LAPD (ret)”

He did us all the favor of directing us to his website, the “Office of Medical and Scientific Justice”. It’s a pretty legit-sounding website that talks a lot about clearing people who are innocent from false accusations against them. Just read the “About” page:

“Having conducted thousands of criminal and civil investigations since 1980 with the LAPD and as a licensed investigator, Mr. Baker founded OMSJ in 2009 after witnessing the reluctance of government agencies and research centers to investigate allegations related to medical and scientific corruption (also known as JUNK SCIENCE).

Many of the agencies and companies that market junk science fund activist groups and local, state and national politicians who facilitate corruption that has cost taxpayers billions of dollars in wasted research dollars. Junk science is used to keep predators on the streets, convict the innocent and injure or kill 2-4 million Americans annually.”

Read in a vacuum, that all sounds great… Until you start reading into Mr. Baker’s ideas. (Tip o’ the hat to regular reader/commenter “Lilady” for the link.) It seems that Mr. Baker is an HIV/AIDS denialist. Among some of the claims on his website are the usual bits of anti-science strategy. First, deny the science and call it “junk science”, but never mind that 99.9% of scientists (that is, 100% of reputable scientists) know and understand that HIV does cause AIDS, that HIV is not a “passenger virus”, and that HIV without antiretroviral treatment is pretty much a death sentence. Second, to try and back up those anti-science claims, find something by a member of the 0.1% of whacky scientists and publish the hell out of it. Third, find instances of scientists misbehaving and then try and discredit their scientific work and that of their colleagues. Finally, cater to what the far right-wing groups and their members want to hear.

It really is quite humorous that Baker follows the same playbook of almost all other anti-science activists follow. Cherry pick and discredit. Cherry pick and discredit. Cherry pick and discredit and be mean about it. Cherry pick, discredit, be mean, and put yourself up on a pedestal as being more than you really are. Oh, and sue people. Don’t try and fight the science, just goddamn sue!

Unfortunately for humanity, Clark Baker is not the only AIDS denialist out there. There are plenty, and there are plenty with advanced degrees whose letters after their names give them some degree of credence. For one reason or another, people listen to them, and we all pay for it dearly.

Science and Reality and AIDS Denialism

In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, physicians around the country started to notice that certain patients of theirs were coming down with some really weird infections. These infections, like pneumonia from a fungus, were not usually seen in otherwise healthy individuals. In fact, the fungal pneumonia being seeing at the time had only been seen in severely malnourished children and in people whose immune systems had been decimated. These physicians, being the astute people that they were, reported their findings among themselves and to health departments. It wasn’t until June of 1981 that a report from CDC documenting these cases of atypical pneumonias in gay men that the floodgates were opened. Healthcare providers from all over the nation started to report that, yes, there was something happening that people (usually gay men at the time) were coming down with atypical pneumonias and other infections termed “opportunistic” because they take advantage of weakened immune systems.

In 1983, two independent (and competing) groups of scientists in America and France isolated a new virus from people with what had come to be known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). The viruses they isolated were named HTLV-III and LAV by the two teams, respectively, but it would be renamed Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in 1986. It was then understood that HIV was the causative agent of AIDS because:

  • AIDS patients all had HIV in their blood and anti-HIV antibodies in their serum.
  • People without AIDS who were exposed to HIV and infected (by lab accidents and accidental needle sticks, NOT because they were deliberately infected) went on to develop AIDS.
  • In the lab, HIV was grown in media from all cases of AIDS and people without AIDS were not found to have HIV in them.

It would have been unethical to randomize people in a study into the “give them HIV” and “don’t give them HIV” groups, so a lot of these observations were based on observational epidemiological studies. Later on, antiretroviral drugs (drugs against HIV) showed that:

  • AIDS patients given antiretroviral drugs would get better, especially once their HIV levels went down.
  • People with HIV who were given the drugs before AIDS set in did not develop AIDS, or developed it at a much later time.
  • Pregnant women with HIV given antiretrovirals would have HIV-negative babies, while pregnant women with HIV who did not receive the drug would pass it on to their children.

Jesus once said that all who had ears should listen, but I’m going to take it one step further. Let all who have brains understand this:

No HIV, no AIDS. HIV, AIDS. Antiretrovirals, low HIV, no AIDS. No antiretrovirals, certain death from AIDS and the infections that come from it.

Sadly, not everyone has grasped this concept and there continue to be people who… Well… Read it yourself:

The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis came into existence as a group of signatories of an open letter to the scientific community. The letter (dated June 6, 1991) has been submitted to the editors of NatureScienceThe Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine. All have refused to publish it. In 1995 The Group was able to get another letter published inScience.

Over the years more and more people have added their signature to the first letter. By signing the letter; the statement below, one becomes a member of The Group too.

It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.

There are 3100 signatories.”
There are 3,100 people who don’t believe that HIV causes AIDS, despite the overwhelming evidence that it does. They want “critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.” Well, they have. They’ve been devised and undertaken. Since we can’t randomize people into the HIV infection and non-HIV infection groups, we looked at people with AIDS and tested them for HIV. They all had it. Then we looked at healthy people and tested them for HIV. They all didn’t have it. (Of course, there are a couple of people who were exposed to HIV and even mounted an immune response to it, becoming positive for antibody testing, but they shed the virus and were not infected.) Further, people exposed to the virus by accident (e.g. needle-stick at the hospital) before the time of antiretroviral therapy, who then became infected, went on to develop AIDS. Once antiretroviral therapy was developed, people exposed to the virus, and even those infected, did not develop AIDS, or recovered from AIDS if they had it.
The people that don’t believe this are known as “AIDS denialists.” They believe in their hearts that HIV does not cause AIDS. Some believe that HIV doesn’t even exist. Others believe that AIDS is the result of the antiretroviral drugs and that these drugs are not necessary. Still others believe that AIDS has been made up by pharmaceutical companies wanting to sell their drugs to third world countries. And then there are the fringe elements, those in the most extreme, who believe that the government (or some big, malevolent force) created the virus, but that it doesn’t cause AIDS.
Now, if I may get personal for a little bit, it is painfully obvious to me that these people have not been to Africa, have not done real virological research, or may be otherwise sick in the head. But that’s just me. Now, back to the story I’m trying to tell you…
AIDS denialists wrote the following passage and signed it. (Scroll down to read the statement.) It’s a long statement, and, if you’re inclined to live in reality, you might find your blood boiling. But it is worth reading because you need the full “flavor” of what I’m talking about. After listing everyone that has signed this statement, the following reads, with my emphasis in bold:

“There you have it. No “handful of wild-eyed conspiracy theorists.” No “right-wing racists,” as the Aids industry’s spinmeisters would have you believe. Just 2,916 very serious, concerned, highly educated people from every corner of the globe who sense that an enormous tragedy is unfolding due to the medical establishment’s unwillingness to face the evidence that the Hiv-Aids theory is a mistake.The people on this page were intellectually curious enough to have sought out and studied the arguments that discredit the Hiv-Aids theory. Since the mass media and professional journals censor these arguments, the vast majority of doctors and scientists, although decent people who want to do the right thing, have never been exposed to them, and so accept the biased conclusions of politicized bureaucracies like the CDC and WHO, whose coziness with the drug industry is legendary and whose recommendations always seems to dovetail perfectly with drug industry marketing plans.

Were it not for the massive media blackout of information that contradicts the Hiv theory, many more people would be asking tough questions.

The next time you hear the media say, “only a handful of scientists doubt Hiv’s role in Aids,” refer them to this page. Explain to them that it is wrong to misrepresent the fact that there is enormous dissent to the Hiv-Aids paradigm.

The next time you hear the media drone, “Hiv, the virus that causes Aids,” remind them that journalists are supposed to distinguish between what is a theory and what is a fact. That Hiv-Aids is only a theory and has never been proven, is admitted by top scientists even in the Aids establishment.

The next time the media announce that tens of millions of people are dying from Hiv in Africa, ask them how they know that. Remind them that journalists are supposed to question dubious assertions from powerful, drug-industry funded agencies like the WHO, not parrot them as if they were indisputable. Ask them why they report these numbers as if they were actual Aids cases, when in fact they are projections made by WHO’s computer programs, based on very questionable statistical methodologies and contradicted by many facts including the continual large population increases experienced in the countries supposedly worst affected.

Request that the media stop twisting the truth in support of a politicized, entrenched Aids establishment that profits financially by terrorizing people, pokes its nose shamelessly into people’s private sex lives, compels people to submit to inaccurate tests and literally forces mothers and babies to swallow toxic, unproven chemotherapy drugs with horrific, often-fatal side effects.

Explain to them that this is irresponsible, and that such actions cause needless anxiety, shatter people’s lives, tear families apart, destroy hope and trigger countless suicides. And that while we realize that sensational headlines about “killer viruses” sell newspapers, the social cost of these profits is unacceptable.

Make the media understand that keeping people in the dark about the large number of credentialed dissenters to the Hiv-Aids dogmas, and the financial conflicts of interest that are rampant among Hiv-Aids scientists and NGOs, is a violation of everyone’s human right to informed consent and freedom of information.”

If these statements sound familiar to you, they should. They’re the same kind of ploys used by anti-vaccine forces to try and discredit the proven science of vaccines. In their minds, there are conflicts of interest, secret arrangements, media blackouts, human rights violations, paradigms that need to be challenged, and mothers and babies dying. Never mind that independents organizations like Doctors Without Borders have been on the ground in Africa helping all these supposedly inexistent people dying from AIDS. Never mind that plenty of people here in the US have died from AIDS after being infected by HIV, not before. Never mind that our collective hearts have been broken time and time again at seeing children dying from AIDS after being born to HIV-positive women, only to be lifted up when we see thriving children whose mother received the antiretrovirals and didn’t pass on HIV to those children.
There is a sort of disconnection from reality that boggles the mind, really.
So why am I writing this? I am writing this because a friend alerted me to one of the people who apparently* signed this statement. That person has been described thus as “…one of the most influential voices in medical research today.” (NY Times). He was up until recently a post doctoral researcher at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. He has participated in the Cochrane Collaborative, doing systematic reviews on research about influenza vaccines and Tamiflu. And now, he’s been hired as an associate editor of the British Medical Journal.
Let that settle in for a few seconds.
One Mississippi.
Two Mississippi.
Three Mississippi.
Four Mississippi.
Five Mississippi.
An associate editor of the British Medical Journal apparently* signed a statement supporting the idea that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, that there are no such things as actual cases of AIDS or deaths from AIDS or a pandemic of AIDS, and that there are plenty of groups interested in killing mothers and babies with antiretroviral therapy.
Sleep on that tonight and tell me in the comments if reality hasn’t been just a little bit distorted for you.
Below is a screen shot of the names of a few signatories. The person in question is the fourth one down. The first one you’ll recognize too, I believe.
Screen Shot 2013-10-04 at 8.41.45 PM
*Then again, everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. This PhD may have come around to accept the fact that HIV causes AIDS and that’s why he’s now focusing on the idea that influenza is not a big deal. After all, the page does not tell us when he signed it, and the form to be signed is pretty easy to spook (sign anonymously or sign in place of a different person).
What do you all think?

Anti-vaccine notions and the people who follow them are dangerous in more ways than one

I came across this the other day:

“Are vaccines causing more disease than they are curing?”

The answer, simply, is a resounding, astounding, non-confounding and unrelenting “NO!” Never mind that vaccines don’t “cure” diseases. They prevent them. Some vaccines are given after exposure to a pathogen, but they are not given to cure. They are given to give the immune system a head start in building a response to the pathogen. But, as always, facts and reality and stuff like that don’t get in the way of a juicy article that goes from being anti-vaccine to diving head-first into being an all-out AIDS denialism diatribe. Continue reading