Aids denialism at the Spectator (Bad Science)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

Ben Goldacre,
Saturday 24 October 2009,
The Guardian

A lot of strange stuff can fly in under the claim that you are “simply starting a debate”. You may remember the Aids denialist documentary House Of Numbers from 3 weeks ago. Since then, it has received many glowing outings. The London Raindance film festival explained that they were proud to show it, and a senior programmer appeared on Youtube saying they had gone through the film at 15 second intervals, finding no inaccuracies at all.

This is pretty good for a film which suggests that HIV doesn’t cause Aids, but antiretroviral drugs do, or poverty, or drug use, but HIV probably doesn’t exist, diagnostic tools don’t work, and Aids is simply a spurious basket diagnosis invented to sell antiretroviral medication for a wide range of unrelated problems, and the treatments don’t work either.

But now the film has received an even more prominent platform. Here is Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, promoting the Spectator event next Wednesday at which they will be screening this film: “Is it legitimate to discuss the strength of the link between HIV and Aids? It’s one of these hugely emotive subjects, with a fairly strong and vociferous lobby saying that any open discussion is deplorable and tantamount to Aids denialism. Whenever any debate hits this level, I get deeply suspicious.”

Of course people will have some concerns. Despite international outcry, from 2000 to 2005 South Africa implemented policies based on the belief that HIV does not cause Aids, and declined to roll out adequate antiretroviral therapy. It has been estimated in two separate studies that around 350,000 people died unnecessarily in South African during this period.
We should also remember that “teach the controversy” is a technique beloved of American creationists, and of antivaccination campaigners (with whom Fraser Nelson has also, oddly, flirted). These groups know that in our modern media, where truth is halfway between the two most extreme views, to insert doubt is to win.

More: http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/aids-denialism-at-the-spectator/

I'm surprised that this nonsense is being "debated" by The Spectator, although it is a Tory rag. This article is worth a read through, especially how the film's central thesis is blown away in very tragic circumstances.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. IMHO, Christine Maggiore was a murderer.

She refused to do anything to prevent her daughter from contracting HIV and chose to ignore advice that could have helped the girl. My mom and I had a bit of a heated argument on this issue. She believes that these are the consequences of a free society--sometimes people make their own decisions and sometimes these decisions are wrong. I believe that the government has an obligation to stop parents from killing their children with their beliefs (ala James Wantland and Eliza Jane Scovill).

[Warpy]

2. Your wife is correct, to a point

We get to choose stupid things for ourselves, from smoking tobacco through denying the medical treatment that would save our lives in favor of silly things that won't. What we don't get to do is decide that for our children when they become ill with a life threatening disease.

Here in the US, numerous court cases have determined that children aren't our property and that the state has a vested interest in seeing that they grow up.

The only real problem is locating those children before their parents kill them with their wacky beliefs. Too often, it only happens once the kids die.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. My mom

:)

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. The Spectator likes to 'teach the controversy' about global warming

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/09/george-monbiot-ian-plimer

Overall, it seems to have a kneejerk "scientists are wrong" attitude. It has many fellow RWers, especially in the US, who also deny global warming is happening; but anti-vaccination and AIDS denialism isn't so obviouslty RW.

[Djinn]

5. scientists HAVE to be wrong

because otherwise journalists would have to admit they simply don't understand something which would cause them to spontaneously combust (speaking as a reformed media scumbag)

[TZ]

6. Hehe. Very true

I understand that a "science background" in journalism is having taken chemistry in high school! I still remember one particular piece from the MSM posted here about "the dangers of aspartame" which had a sentence which referred to the mitochondria as "part of the DNA"...:eyes:

[LeftishBrit]

7. Indeed

The Spectator is written by a bunch of pseudo-intelligent right-wingers who combine a dislike for anything new (as in, less than 50 years old) with a tendency to sneer at anyone who might be seen as needing compassion, or who demonstrates compassion. Not a pleasant combination. A good description for it is 'The Daily Mail for toffs'