This is an old version of that is no longer maintained. Please go to our new site at:
About Us
In The News:
AIDS Denialism:
      Debunking Denialist Myths
      Who the Denialists are
      Answering Denialists
      Features, Editorials & Letters
      Legal Issues
      Misuse of Studies
      Denialism and Politics
HIV/AIDS Science:
      Scientific Studies
      Benefits of Antiretroviral Drugs
      Supporting Information
      Anti-denialist Websites
AIDS Pseudoscience:
      Alternative AIDS Treatments
      Pseudoscience and the Media
      Pseudoscience and Politics
      Pseudoscience Satire
Spanish Pages
HIV/AIDS Glossaries
HIV/AIDS Organizations

The Silvah case

In the Silvah case, a young child acquired a needle-stick injury from a discarded syringe he found in an area known to be frequented by IV drug users, who, in turn, are known to be at risk for HIV infection. The mother took the child to a local hospital, where a standard, prophylactic regimen for prevention of HIV transmission was prescribed by the attending physician. The regimen contained zidovudine (AZT). The mother later fell under the influence of AIDS denialists and was persuaded to sue the attending physician and a second physician who also saw the child and recommended that the prophylactic regimen should continue. The basis of the mother's lawsuit, which also involved Glaxo SmithKline (the makers of AZT), was that her child, by receiving AZT, had been exposed to a "cancer-causing poison" (sic). Appearing as "expert witnesses" for the prosecution were Rasnick and, eventually, Duesberg. The case was resolved before the trial, when the court granted the summary judgment motion of GSK and determined that there was no issue meriting a trial.

Here is the summary judgment and relevant declarations: