Scienceblog’s own Tara Smith, with Steve Novella, has an article in PLoS on HIV Denial in the Internet Era. It describes some of the major players among the HIV deniers, and most importantly talks about their tactics. It’s useful even if you aren’t at all involved in that branch of biology or invested in that particular argument: one section is titled “Portraying Science as Faith and Consensus as Dogma” and that certainly struck a chord with me — that is one of the most common creationist arguments, as well.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
bah, where was this article when i actually needed it?
I was rather disappointed to see the Foo-Fighters were involved in supporting one of the denial groups.
I just gave that article a quick read – or tried to – until I got to the point about the mother who managed to kill her kid by, well, “stupiding it to death” seems the best description. WTF is going on here? It’s got to be religion aiding and abetting such stupidity, because anyone else who was engaging in medical child abuse with a breast-feeding infant would be in serious doo-doo (that’s the technical term) right?
This is a great case in point for Randi’s position that “woo woo kills” and, unfortunately, it kills the wrong people. Have you ever noticed it’s the kids that die, not the ‘breatharians’?
The “alive and well” site is offering a $50,000 prize for Alive & Well will present a cash award of $25,000 to the first person to locate a study that provides us with missing evidence about the accuracy of HIV tests(there’s more) — this might be a good way for some energetic young biology student to pay his or her way through a semester of college, no? I wonder if we publicize this in the right place if someone can take their damned money from them.
mjr.
Sheesh! Everyone knows that AIDS is caused by atheism…
Thomas, I thought it was caused by homosexuality. Or Liberalism. Or both. Atheism too, you say? *ulp*
I woulda figured the Foo Fighters to be woo fighters. What a shame. I guess I won’t be buying their next CD…
Actually, it looks like the bass player started it all, but has managed to get at least some of the other band members on board. At a glance, it looks like they’ve been fooled by an argument that confuses corrolation with cause. (For example, “anal sex causes AIDS” … whoa.)
That’s a scam just like Hovind’s “challenge.” No one will be able to provide a paper that lives up to their standards.
“Portraying Science as Faith and Consensus as Dogma” and that certainly struck a chord with me — that is one of the most common creationist arguments, as well.
Ditto AGW deniers, second hand smoke deniers, etc. These folks are getting their plays from the same book. (Not too surprising really since there’s a lot of overlap between the various groups.) The real problem is that these tactics work.
That’s a scam just like Hovind’s “challenge.” No one will be able to provide a paper that lives up to their standards.
Yep. They say the same thing about Randi’s challenge. How do we break the cycle of “so-and-so is a liar and a cheat?” without stepping up to the plate?
The difference is that people who say that are lying. The contestants in Randi’s challenge have to meet their own standards. The contestants in Hovind’s have to prove to him and his cronies that god cannot exist.
AAAARRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!! I’ve dealt with the HIV/AIDS denialists before. They are a mixed bag and really just a few kooks in the grand scheme of things. Rather disturbing and disreputable folks.
1. Some are just mentally ill trolls who have latched onto HIV denial to center their mind derangement illness around.
2. Some are right wing Xians who want all gays to get AIDS and die because this is god’s plan.
3. Some are just malevolent miserable people who think making fun of and fooling around with people who have a horrible, incurable, and ultimately fatal disease is great entertainment.
4. A few are HIV+ and in denial. I doubt this group is a very large sector of the whole HIV denialist movement.
This is a reality denial belief that can and will kill those who are infected and buy into it. These days, with treatment, the average HIV+ patient will live 13 more years than untreated. In favorable cases it is more like 20 years. In the future it is likely to be even higher. It isn’t uncommon now for HIV+ patients to live long enough to die of something else, heart disease, cancer etc..
The problem is that they’re ruling out the ways that we know to isolate HIV, and inserting a false standard as the “gold”: “direct isolation of HIV from fresh, uncultured fluids or tissues.” First, we know that it’s not always that easy to isolate HIV from these samples, hence co-culture methods are often used, which this “challenge” explicitly disallows. If it were an honest challenge, any routine method of virus isolation and characterization would be accepted, but they’re rigging the game against this from the start.
Sheesh people. You know there is a whole blog here at Sb on this phenomenon.
That’s right folks. It stands for Atheism Induced Death Sentence or Atheism Induced Sexual Deviance.
It is curious that when kooks argue against science by portraying science as ‘faith’, the science-illiterate often perceive this as a devastating argument against science. Yet when atheists argue against religion on the grounds that it is faith, the science-illiterate often see this as a point in religion’s favor.
True llewelly, although many people make the theory=religion link without being religious. I see many people saying global warming is just religion.
Even so I think it boils down to attempt to create false parity between belief systems. If science is just another religion (and since either all religions are valid/should be tolerated/are based on who has the coolest messiah) then creationism should be on par with evolution, altie medicine should be on par with evidence-based medicine etc.
The difference is that people who say that are lying. The contestants in Randi’s challenge have to meet their own standards.
I understand that. The problem is that the situation, by its very nature, is one where “whoever lies best, wins” – that’s not a recipe for the victory of rationality, is it?
I wish I had a few million bucks to endow a couple of grants at universities for real scientists to tackle woo woo head on. Wouldn’t it be great to see papers on the efficacy of homeopathy actually showing up in refereed journals? Or perhaps a couple of top-notch physicists trying to isolate The Hand Of God (after all, if prayer works there must be some linkage between the spiritual plane and the physical, right?) etc. Wouldn’t it be fine to be able to offer to pay for the PhD programs of some promising graduate students if they’d study some of this stuff? Part of the beauty of science is that failure to find something is sometimes just as important a result as an actual discovery…
I’m just fantasizing, I know. But it’s really sad to see that the best the science community can do to respond to their lie is to say “they are lying and Randi’s not.” I wish I had a couple hundred thousand bucks to hold a contest for the best submission against their “prize” and just google-stomp all over them.
mjr.
This is a reality denial belief that can and will kill those who are infected and buy into it.
So I guess it really is a case of “think of it as evolution in action.”
Tough luck for the kids but, well, I guess they were carrying dumbass genes from their denialist parents and it’s best for the species to weed them out early.
>>>It is curious that when kooks argue against science by portraying science as ‘faith’, the science-illiterate often perceive this as a devastating argument against science. Yet when atheists argue against religion on the grounds that it is faith, the science-illiterate often see this as a point in religion’s favor.>>>>
I my own personal experience (anecdotal) those people who suffer from denialism suffer in more than one area.
It seems to be personal and psychological in nature and very little reason is involved. They seem to be unable to accept that there personal perception of reality could be mistaken and will resist with all there energy any effort to show them anything that challenges their perceptions.
Which seems to me to be the opposite to reason and the scientific approach. For me it is seeing the “world” change when some new reasoning or evidence bring new clarity to the true nature of the world that we know. It is always humbling and uplifting.
The problem remains though how to deal with those who suffer from Denialism? How do we proceed when the results are so serious, war, disease, global warming, death and no new taxes.
I don’t believe in the link between heart contractions and cell oxygenation. It’s a big lie told by the CPR industry and Big Cardio. What they don’t want you to know is that, using only a pair of really strong prescription glasses (the kind that darken in the sun, those are really cool) and a jar of nutella, nobody has ever observed a single oxygen atom travel from blood in the chambers of the heart to the inside of a cell membrane elsewhere in the body. I also believe that haemoglobin is an atheist conspiracy and bagels are the final electron acceptor in our ETS.
Quite so. Google for “Journal of Negative Results”.
Quite so. Google for “Journal of Negative Results”.
mjr (#16): The thing that bogus “prizes” like the one from “alive and well” are missing, are concrete examples of what sort of thing they would accept as actual proof. If you can force them to admit that *they cannot conceive of any observable evidence that they would accept*, then you have the crack that you can use to knock their whole charade apart. That’s also where you can differentiate them from Randi’s prize, where Randi has clearly stated any number of times exactly what sorts of things would win it if they could be done.
Just passed the article along to my family. I doubt my rabid global warming denying uncle and grandfather will truly appreciate the parallels between their beliefs and this paper.
I couldn’t keep myself from wriggling with glee as each ridiculous parallel was revealed between the different forms of denialism. It helps to highlight the absurdity of the arguments of the other types of denialism that are more common over here.
Gimpy : I would be very careful about that, because seeing parallels betweeen his and other denjialisms can backfire and turn your uncle in a double, triple or even an universal denialist ;)
Well, the manuscript actually started discussing parallels between HIV and evolution denial…we still hope to publish that somewhere, but we need to rework it now that this part has been published.
Like most of these types of challenges Maggiore has set herself up as the judge. You don’t just have to provide enough evidence to convince the scientific community. You have to convince her. In order to do this you will also have to demonstrate that she unwittingly allowed her own daughter to die from HIV infection.
What human condition do Denialists exploit if not credulity? I don’t “believe” that HIV >> AIDS at all. But the best research, labs, and qualified people agree on the state of knowledge. Guess what, it prob’ly isn’t perfect. Big Pharma is taking a slice in their usual predatory style. Gimme a demonstration that a peach pits and soap remedy is effective and I’ll use it should I be diagnosed.
This is a sweepstakes contract. If it’s stated clearly, and if it could be done hypothetically, someone who presents the evidence has performed the contract and can collect the reward. If it’s a bona fide offer, Maggiore doesn’t get to deny real evidence — a court would decide that.
A good way to test it would be to assemble the evidence about the accuracy of HIV tests, present it and ask for the money. If the group refuses to pay, sue.
Before you go off muttering that I’m crazy, look up the case of Mel Mermelstein, who accepted Willis Carto’s challenge to prove that the Holocaust really occurred. When Carto rejected Mermelstein’s family records (most of his family died in the camps), a wealth of solid historical data, and the tattoo on Mermelstein’s arm, Mermelstein sued, and won. He’d performed the contract as specified in the offer, and the mere fact that Carto’s group insanely refused to recognize that performance did not change the fact that it was a bona fide offer, Mermelstein performed, and Carto’s group owed him the money.
You can read Mermelstein’s story here:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2006/08/28/mermelstein-holocaust-remembrance-hero/
The proceeds of winning this prize on HIV could go to a group studying the virus, or to a group treating the thing. What state is the offer made in? Get a lawyer to take a look at it there; if it’s a bona fide offer and not impossible on its own terms, it’s a prize waiting to be taken.
Hovind’s offer, by the way, calls for several chunks of “evidence” that would be absolutely impossible to provide. It’s not bona fide IMHO, but I’m not licensed in Florida.
Foo Fighters are so off my Christmas* card and iTunes playlists.
(*Assuming the Evil Atheist Conspiracy hasn’t won the WoC by then, natch).
The offer is not bona fide. You have to convince Maggiore, not a court, not the scientific community. Maggiore constantly denies real evidence. She rejects most of modern biological science.
In order to convince Maggiore that HIV exists and causes AIDS you will also have to convince her that she allowed her own daughter to become infected with HIV and die from AIDS. Anyone that thinks that this is likely to happen is somewhat divorced from reality.
If you want to see a precednt for this type of challenge then read what happened when Duesberg (a denialist that argues that HIV exists but is harmless) attempted to win the Continuum prize.
Duesberg Defends Challenges to the Existence of HIV
It should also be noted that the denialist mouthpiece Continuum magazine folded after the majority of its editorial staff died from AIDS.