AIDSTruth.org

AIDSTruth member and Treatment Action Campaign treasurer Nathan Geffen writes in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes:

Edward Mabunda

Edward Mabunda died on April 9, 2003. At least another 600 people died of AIDS in South Africa that day.(1) Edward was just 36 years old. He left behind a wife and 3 children. He was also a leader in the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC). He became an icon of the movement because of the fiery poetry that he recited to thousands of people. His poems urged former President Thabo Mbeki to make antiretrovirals (ARVs) available in South Africa’s public health system. He died because he could not obtain these life-saving medicines in time.(2)

From 1999 to 2007, Mbeki and his Minister of Health Manto Tshabalala-Msimang obstructed and then undermined the implementation of highly active ARV treatment (HAART) and prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in the public health system. Two studies, conducted independently of each other, conservatively calculated that over 300,000 people died because of Mbeki’s AIDS denialist policies.(3–5) Edward Mabunda was one of them.

Jonny Steinberg writes in New Scientist:

ON 27 December 2008, a well-heeled 52-year-old woman died in a Los Angeles hospital. Her death certificate describes a body riddled with opportunistic infections typical of the late stages of AIDS. Christine Maggiore had tested HIV positive 16 years earlier, but she had shunned ART, the antiretroviral therapy that stops HIV replicating and prevents AIDS.

This was not the first time a death in Maggiore's family had made headlines: five years earlier her 3-year-old daughter Eliza Jane had died. The autopsy described a chronically ill little girl who was underweight, under-height, and had encephalitis and pneumonia - all AIDS-related. When pregnant, Maggiore had again rejected ART and she had breastfed Eliza Jane, another way of transmitting the virus.

Why, in 21st-century California, would a middle-class woman and her young daughter die like this when there is tried-and-tested treatment for their illness? The answer lies in a bizarre medical conspiracy theory that says AIDS is not caused by HIV infection (see Five myths about HIV and AIDS).

Korenromp EL, Williams BG, Schmid GP, Dye C (2009) Clinical Prognostic Value of RNA Viral Load and CD4 Cell Counts during Untreated HIV-1 Infection—A Quantitative Review. PLoS ONE 4(6): e5950. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005950

The purpose of the study was to determine if the current World Health Organisation criteria for commencing HAART are appropriate. The study abstract concludes:

Findings support the current WHO recommendation (used with clinical criteria) to start antiretroviral treatment in low-income settings at CD4 thresholds of 200–350 cells/µL, without pre-treatment RNA monitoring – while not precluding earlier treatment based on clinical, socio-demographic or public health criteria.

Interestingly, the authors found:

Mean relative risks per 10-fold higher RNA were 2.0 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8–2.5) for AIDS (12 studies, 17 datapoints) and 2.5 (2.1–3.0) for death (9 studies, 10 datapoints). These prognostic risks did not vary over time after seroconversion, or with duration of follow-up, geographical region, baseline CD4, use of antiretroviral mono-/bi-therapy, or average clinical progression rates.

They also found:

by Jeanne Bergman

Clark Baker is a former Los Angeles police officer who was fired in 1991 after being convicted of battering a jaywalking immigrant. The conviction was later overturned on appeal—not on the facts of the case but on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.¹ Baker has since worked as a licensed private investigator, often, he says, without pay. Baker has a few blogs and websites where he posts his own reactionary opinions² as well as pieces by other conservative conspiracy theorists.

by Anders Vahlne (Clinical Virology and Division of Clinical Microbiology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden)

Originally published in Retrovirology 2009 6:40; doi:10.1186/1742-4690-6-40.

Abstract

The discovery of HIV-1 as the cause of AIDS was one of the major scientific achievements during the last century. Here the events leading to this discovery are reviewed with particular attention to priority and actual contributions by those involved. Since I would argue that discovering HIV was dependent on the previous discovery of the first human retrovirus HTLV-I, the history of this discovery is also re-examined. The first human retroviruses (HTLV-I) was first reported by Robert C. Gallo and coworkers in 1980 and reconfirmed by Yorio Hinuma and coworkers in 1981. These discoveries were in turn dependent on the previous discovery by Gallo and coworkers in 1976 of interleukin 2 or T-cell growth factor as it was called then. HTLV-II was described by Gallo's group in 1982. A human retrovirus distinct from HTLV-I and HTLV-II in that it was shown to have the morphology of a lentivirus was in my mind described for the first time by Luc Montagnier in an oral presentation at Cold Spring Harbor in September of 1983. This virus was isolated from a patient with lymphadenopathy using the protocol previously described for HTLV by Gallo. The first peer reviewed paper by Montagnier's group of such a retrovirus, isolated from two siblings of whom one with AIDS, appeared in Lancet in April of 1984. However, the proof that a new human retrovirus (HIV-1) was the cause of AIDS was first established in four publications by Gallo's group in the May 4^th issue of Science in 1984.

Mark Hoofnagle reviews Seth Kalichman's Denying AIDS for the Denialism Blog. He writes,

Seth Kalichman is a better man than I. Kalichman is a clinical psychologist, editor of the journal Aids and Behavior and director of the Southeast HIV/AIDS Research and Evaluation (SHARE) product, and he has devoted his life to the treatment and prevention of HIV. Despite a clear passion for reducing the harm done by HIV/AIDS, to research this book he actually met, and interviewed, prominent HIV/AIDS denialists. I confess I simply lack the temperament to have done this. To this day, when I read about HIV/AIDS denialists, and the the 330,000 people who have died as a result of HIV/AIDS denialism, I see red. I think violent, bloody thoughts.

Read the rest of the review

From POZ.
(Un)deniable Evidence
by James Wortman

A college professor takes on AIDS naysayers in his latest book.

Despite overwhelming scientific findings, some people remain convinced that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS and that antiretrovirals are toxic poisons. Led by vocal skeptics such as former South African President Thabo Mbeki and the late Christine Maggiore, AIDS denialism continues to flourish, especially with the help of the Internet.

To counter this strengthening movement, Seth Kalichman, PhD, a social psychology professor at the University of Connecticut, wrote Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy ($25, Copernicus Books), which examines AIDS denialism’s origin, agendas and potentially damaging influence on HIV prevention and treatment.

Kalichman believes that the scientific community’s decision to stay quiet over the years has only fueled the denialists’ power. “[For too long] scientists have believed that if you ignore the denialists, they will go away,” he told POZ. “The HIV community really has a role in combating this misinformation.”  

This is an extract from Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, Published by Harper Perennial 2009. You are free to copy it, paste it, bake it, reprint it, read it aloud, as long as you don’t change it – including this bit – so that people know that they can find more ideas for free at www.badscience.net.

The Doctor Will Sue You Now

This chapter did not appear in the original edition of this book, because for fifteen months leading up to September 2008 the vitamin-pill entrepreneur Matthias Rath was suing me personally, and the Guardian, for libel. This strategy brought only mixed success. For all that nutritionists may fantasise in public that any critic is somehow a pawn of big pharma, in private they would do well to remember that, like many my age who work in the public sector, I don't own a flat. The Guardian generously paid for the lawyers, and in September 2008 Rath dropped his case, which had cost in excess of £500,000 to defend. Rath has paid £220,000 already, and the rest will hopefully follow.  Nobody will ever repay me for the endless meetings, the time off work, or the days spent poring over tables filled with endlessly cross-referenced court documents.