What is the purpose of this particular blog, New AIDS Review, the core blog of Science and Ethics Guardian? In essence, it is to use the complete peer reviewed scientific and medical literature to brief both newcomers and the more knowledgeable on the vexed issue of whether the conventional wisdom in “HIV∫AIDS” is correct or not.
According to that literature, and the books and comment on the topic reviewed in posts here over the past two and a half years, it isn’t. Period.
A contradictory view of HIV∫AIDS
The paradigm that AIDS is caused by an infectious virus, and that that unique virus – HIV, now labeled self servingly and misleadingly as the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, – is behind a grand infectious pandemic that is sweeping the world, felling millions by destroying their immune systems, has never been scientifically credible, according to the best peer reviewed literature of the field and in particular, the ongoing reviews both mainstream and from paradigm critics of the mismatch between the theory and its scientific studies and their results.
Though now an almost universal belief of governments, institutions and individuals around the world, HIV-is-the-virus-that-causes-AIDS began as a non starter of a paradigm, scientifically speaking, a stillborn child of ambition and authority, of political and economic advantage, which was rejected almost immediately by knowledgeable critics but nonetheless rescued, kept alive and inflated to global dominance by professional and media censorship, a massive influx of funding and unprecedented political pressures, all aided by the servility and conformity of the uncritical science and general interest media.
The claim, which was privately ridiculed by the elite of the scientific field which spawned it (retroviruses) when it was first made in 1984, and which soon (1987 and 1989) was thoroughly and expertly rejected in lengthy professional scientific reviews in the highest peer reviewed journals, has always lacked proof or even convincing demonstration of any kind in the scientific literature.
These profound drawbacks did not, however, keep it from instantly becoming a hallowed and unchallengeable assumption of tens of thousands of self-referencing papers. One reason is that the supposed solution to AIDS was announced at a news conference mounted by the federal government, which immediately guaranteed federal funding for any research based upon the claim and ensured that any claim rashly based on alternative and better justified science would be denied.
Precisely how this wingless paradigm failed to crash in the wake of the standard scientific review process which rejected it, and has instead been borne aloft for twenty two years on the hot air of claims, belief, faith, reinterpretation, rationalization, fantasy and delusion in the service of self-interest and group advantage, to the detriment and often death of those mismedicated in its wake, is the subject of this blog.
HIV∫AIDS a case study
As the most remarkable specimen extant of a proven baseless belief maintained as conventional wisdom in the face of scientific logic and evidence, not to mention plain common sense, HIV∫AIDS is the case study par excellence of how modern influences can distort science away from its origins in avocational truth seeking and toward its more modern role in licensing personal gain and power.
The situation is not unique in science. Vast sums are now at stake in maintaining more than one such unfounded scientific belief system beyond its proper shelf life, as billions pour into science and the pockets of scientistsfrom government and private sources, particularly biotechnology investors and drug developing companies. But HIV∫AIDS is certainly the biggest of such boondoggles that we know of.
In the case of HIV∫AIDS, the belief is artificially protected by explicitly acknowledged bureaucratic censorship at NIAID, full media cooperation with this ban on covering the topic, and drug company support of the many non governmental AIDS patient support groups in this country and abroad, funding which ensures that activists are bound to the ruling wisdom.
No conspiracy theory implied
No conspiracy is stated or implied in covering this topic and explaining how the system has gone awry, and nor are individuals accused of conscious deceit, however misguided their activities in the science or medication of AIDS and however obvious their resistance to considering the alternative without bias.
HIV∫AIDS may be the grandest delusion yet in the history of medicine, but there is no evidence it was planned or coordinated as such except in small ways by Dr Anthony Fauci and his publicity cohorts at the NIH and elsewhere who have joined a few influential scientists and gay activists in protecting the paradigm with propaganda against debunkers. Most of its expansion has been achieved by the passive process of letting human nature take its course. That, at least, is our opinion, barring more evidence available under the Freedom of Information Act and possibly the discovery process in upcoming criminal trials.
The modest objective of this blog is to provide a public service in guiding enquirers to the material available on the topic, including the two dozen or more books on the topic, many written by scientific and medical authorities among the thousands of scientists, academics, scholars, specialists and professionals of all kinds that have added their names to a public list of critics urging a paradigm review.
Need for this blog
A long list of newspapers and magazines have covered this topic but nearly all (particularly Science, Nature, the New York Times and the New Yorker) have failed to employ reporters capable of or willing to challenge the NIAID and questioning the scientists most responsible for the misportrayal of the science and comparing their claims with the literature of the field, rather than supinely becoming propaganda spokesmen for the paradigm promoters. Some have distinguished themselves, however, including the Sunday Times of London (Neville Hodgkinson) and Harpers Magazine in New York (Celia Farber).
But apart from a slew of books on the theme of how things have gone very wrong in this field, the promoters of the paradigm still have a stranglehold on media coverage of HIV∫AIDS, and on political and media influence at NIAID, CDC, WHO, UNAID, NAS, NSF, Science, Nature, all foundations, virtually all governments (South Africa is the exception) etc. so there is a need for independent blog coverage which can guide readers to more reliable sources on the Web and off, especially the medical and scientific literature in the PubMed data base.
The posts in this blog develop this theme from their beginning and form a reasonably sequential guide to the various aspects of the issue. Read from the start to gain a quick understanding of the picture and its frame,that is, the paradigm dispute and the sociological context which distorts it.
Science and Ethics Guardian
Following the events and claims of HIV∫AIDS and its dissent over two and a half years, from January 2005 to mid-2007, with Comments open to and attracting contradictions and objections from all comers, the blog host sadly concluded that the case against HIV as the cause of AIDS, the ruling paradigm under assessment in New AIDS Review, was complete, and there were no further arguments or supposed evidence to entertain against the debunkers who have weighed in against it.
For that reason, the expansion of the topic to other paradigms under review, such as human caused global warming, cancer caused by oncogenes, etc., which we have dealt with from time to time, seemed appropriate to avoid repetition.
Moreover, it has become increasingly clear that the fundamental issue in discriminating between good science and bad science is whether the science is practiced according to genuine professional standards or not, ie without bias introduced by human nature (see the blog logo) and without the distortion introduced by censorship, bullying and other means of evading open review.
Since good science is truthseeking, and a social activity in which professional standards have to be maintained, it seems to us that the ethics of good and bad behavior are the fundamental rules that have to be observed, and that this blog is concerned as much with those ethics as with science per se (data, observation and theory).
So we have expanded the title of the blog to Science and Ethics Guardian to better reflect our area of concern.
Lest this give the wrong, arrogant impression we hasten to add that this implies absolutely nothing about the behavior of the blog host, who in no way sets himself up as the example to be followed, though admittedly we do try to live a decent life in accordance with the principles we imagine lead to the greatest social happiness and personal security of all.
However, we also hurry to admit that if the representatives of large corporate entities or other fine institutions wish to offer us contributions to enable us to go forward with the work of this blog in promulgating what we think are worthwhile social goals, and those contributions are large enough, we cannot promise that we will refuse, and if we accept we cannot guarantee that our minds and our posts will not be subtly twisted in the general direction of tolerance of the self-serving views and opinions which seem to go hand in hand with such gifts in the case of other commentators.
For who are we to claim we are less human than anybody else?
Update: Reversion of title to original
Brevity being the soul of wit, we have reverted to the original title of Science Guardian, partly because we prefer to let the ethical implications speak for themselves, and to confine posts purely to the actual events in science and its politics we are concerned with, which may or may not give readers umbrage, which we leave up to them, and their expression of it in comments.
Trained in the “objective” reporting tradition we find ourselves uncomfortable in the role of arbiter and judge, since after all no one appointed us the judge of others, and such considerations are essentially unscientific. Our quasi-scientific study is human nature and its effect on the practice and profession of science, as far as we can divine it, and it is not our business to comment on its quality in individual cases, however lacking it may be in some instances well known to readers of this blog.
Moreover, we have found that quite often judging is an excuse not to give to others.