Science Guardian

Giving is good, and Clinton leads world in how to get it done

Bigger targets get more but fantasy meme maintains hold

As noisy helicopters overhead herald the arrival of international leaders to the UN Assembly, former President Clinton’s Clinton Global Initiative, his ambitious initiative leading prominent corporate chieftains and political leaders in many private projects to fight global poverty and ills, entered Round III today in Manhattan.

In a remarkably short time, Clinton has established himself as the world leader in coaxing and pressuring business and political leaders to contribute personal projects to raising up the lives of the underprivileged around the world.

In fact, if the business and political leaders who attend his jamboree don’t pony up and follow through, they are not invited back:

Attendees are required to make specific commitments to address one of the topics and report back to President Clinton on the progress made throughout the course of the year. Attendees who do not make or keep their commitment will not be invited to attend future meetings.

Here’s the gen this morning issued by CGI as we prepare to go down there and swim among the rich and influential whales, sharks, porpoises and small fry from the press.

Notice the improvement in balance that is being achieved by the Clinton effort, which is accelerating the spread of charitable rescue efforts in Africa and elsewhere well beyond AIDS to other ills. While the African First Ladies are banding together to make sure that as many pregnant black Africans as possible get the drugs they need to combat the HIV meme, the ten million children who die annually from pneumonia, sepsis, diarrhea, malaria, malnutrition and newborn complications globally are going to be the target of a special effort called Survive Until Five, which is going to spend nearly four times as much:

Clinton kicked off the third annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) with over one thousand leaders of business, government and non-governmental organizations representing over 70 countries and including 52 current and former heads of state. During the opening session, Clinton announced five new commitments, including over $1 billion by the Norwegian and Dutch Governments to reduce maternal and child mortality.

“I’m gratified today because it’s clear to me that this model of philanthropy and giving, which began as an experiment in 2005, has proven itself in only two short years. Since our first meeting, more than 600 commitments have been made by CGI members, impacting 100 countries and millions of lives,” he said. “In its third year, CGI is evidence of something that I have always believed— that people are inherently generous, that giving makes you feel good, and that the only thing most of us are looking for is an opportunity to make a difference.”…

Save the Children US and UK
Save the Children and its partners will create a Survive to 5 campaign, driving awareness and action on behalf of the almost 10 million children who die annually from pneumonia, sepsis, diarrhea, malaria, malnutrition and newborn complications globally. Former US Senate Majority Leader, William Frist, will serve as the chair of the campaign as part of Save the Children’s commitment to global leadership will work closely with key governments to significantly reduce preventable child deaths. The five-year campaign will launch in fall 2007 and is estimated to cost $75 million.

Maureen Mwanawasa, First Lady of Zambia
The Organization of African First Ladies Against HIV/AIDS, and their President, the First Lady of Zambia, Mrs. Maureen K. Mwanawasa, will champion the expansion of programs and funding for the Prevention of Mother-to-Child-Transmission (PMTCT) of HIV/AIDS. Supported by $20 million over 2 years, their “Save the Unborn Child” campaign and will be implemented by 40 African First Ladies in their respective countries and will save millions of lives by preventing one of the most easily preventable forms of HIV/AIDS transmission.

Clinton kicked off the third annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) with over one thousand leaders of business, government and non-governmental organizations representing over 70 countries and including 52 current and former heads of state. During the opening session, Clinton announced five new commitments, including over $1 billion by the Norwegian and Dutch Governments to reduce maternal and child mortality.

“I’m gratified today because it’s clear to me that this model of philanthropy and giving, which began as an experiment in 2005, has proven itself in only two short years. Since our first meeting, more than 600 commitments have been made by CGI members, impacting 100 countries and millions of lives,” he said. “In its third year, CGI is evidence of something that I have always believed— that people are inherently generous, that giving makes you feel good, and that the only thing most of us are looking for is an opportunity to make a difference.”

Joining President Clinton in the opening panel discussion, titled The Need for Global Action which explored the capacity of businesses, governments, and NGOs to collaboratively develop and implement global solutions, were the President of the Republic of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo; Vice President Al Gore; President and CEO of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., H. Lee Scott Jr.; Archbishop Desmond Tutu; and President of The World Bank Group, Robert B. Zoellick.

President Clinton announced the launch of MyCommitment.org, an interactive website challenging everyone to take action, make commitments and grow a grassroots movement around public service.

“This year, in an effort to inspire millions of people to engage in citizen service, we’ve developed a new online tool to help those who want to give back do so, either in their own communities or half a world away,” President Clinton said. “MyCommitment.org is intended to provide people across the globe with the opportunity to give to others as well as to tell others their stories of giving.”

The commitments made during the opening session included:

* The Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health: The governments of Norway and the Netherlands are committing $1 billion and $175 million respectively to launch “Deliver Now for Women and Children,” a campaign aimed at a two-thirds reduction in the rate of child mortality and three-quarters reduction in maternal mortality by 2015.
* Florida Power & Light: FP&L is investing $2.4 billion in energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. As part of the project, FP&L will build new solar power plants that are expected to reduce CO2 emissions by more than 2 million tons over 5 years, they will also provide smart meters to their customers along with an education program designed to help customers reduce their carbon footprint.
* The Darfur Project: PNC Foundation, Blue Mountain Capital, TONIC, the Bridge Foundation, Goldman Sachs Foundation and Merrill Lynch are partnering in a $2 million commitment funding eight airlifts to take much needed humanitarian relief to Darfur and Chad. The flights will be made available for partner organizations wanting to send essential supplies, with the first four flights completed by the end of the year.
* Scojo Reading Glass Microfranchises: In this $1.57 million commitment the Scojo Foundation is committing to more than triple the scale of its program for training entrepreneurs in developing countries to sell affordable reading glasses by expanding to ten additional countries. In total 3,000 entrepreneurs will develop new sources of income providing 300,000 people with new glasses and other eye care products.
* Interpeace: Partnering with President Ramos-Horta and the Peace and Democracy Foundation, Interpeace is investing $1.2 million to implement a nation-wide program designed to enable the Timorese to become the architects of their own future by empowering them to identify the underlying drivers of the violence and un-rest in their communities and to find ways of addressing them in a non-violent and sustainable manner.

Among the additional CGI commitments expected to be announced today:

GLOBAL HEALTH

Save the Children US and UK
Save the Children and its partners will create a Survive to 5 campaign, driving awareness and action on behalf of the almost 10 million children who die annually from pneumonia, sepsis, diarrhea, malaria, malnutrition and newborn complications globally. Former US Senate Majority Leader, William Frist, will serve as the chair of the campaign as part of Save the Children’s commitment to global leadership will work closely with key governments to significantly reduce preventable child deaths. The five-year campaign will launch in fall 2007 and is estimated to cost $75 million.

Maureen Mwanawasa, First Lady of Zambia
The Organization of African First Ladies Against HIV/AIDS, and their President, the First Lady of Zambia, Mrs. Maureen K. Mwanawasa, will champion the expansion of programs and funding for the Prevention of Mother-to-Child-Transmission (PMTCT) of HIV/AIDS. Supported by $20 million over 2 years, their “Save the Unborn Child” campaign and will be implemented by 40 African First Ladies in their respective countries and will save millions of lives by preventing one of the most easily preventable forms of HIV/AIDS transmission.

Merck & Co.
Merck will establish a $375.5 million program providing access to its HPV vaccine, Gardasil, in lowest-income countries. By donating a minimum of three million doses of the vaccine over a five-year period Merck will ensure that an estimated 1 million women receive the three-dose regimen and are protected from cervical cancer and other HPV-related diseases. This initiative is an extension of a 2006 CGI commitment by Merck to donate rotavirus vaccine to the Nicaraguan Government in an effort to cover every newborn in the country for three years.

CARE USA
Acting as a convener and catalyst, CARE USA will mobilize a global coalition of public and private entities to make sustainable improvements in maternal health and the nutritional status of children under the age of two. These coalitions will, through CARE’s signature eight-year program, “Empowering Women for Good Health,” develop services for low-income women that will help them realize their rights to a safe pregnancy and childbirth, as well as provide information and resources that will help new mothers give their babies a healthy start. The program will be globally focused and has the potential to reach 70+ countries where CARE works. It is anticipated that project implementations will occur in 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Central and South America.

EDUCATION

BRAC, Nike, NoVo and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
BRAC USA, as well as the Nike, NoVo and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are mobilizing $271 million to provide education opportunities ranging from primary schooling to graduate degrees and life skills training to 7.5 million children over the next five years in Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Tanzania, Uganda and Southern Sudan. The project hopes to mirror the success of last year’s $250 million commitment to provide comprehensive health, education, microfinance and empowerment programs to individuals in five African countries.

Academy for Educational Development
The Academy for Educational Development (AED) will increase the access and quality of education for girls in Liberia, Southern Sudan, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea and other African countries. Their Leadership for Education and African Development (LEAD) project will introduce the tools necessary to update the local curriculum and teaching methods to enhance community participation and improve education quality. The project’s goal is to significantly improve the educational opportunities of at least 3 million children by 2015.

Center for Development and Population Activities
CEDPA commits to improving the education and health situations of 20,000 South African girls by adapting its successful life skills curriculum and proven youth development framework to townships in Southern Africa. Utilizing the support of anonymous private funding, CEDPA will expand its programs from its five pilot sites by working closely with local partners to successfully integrate its programs into each location.

POVERTY ALLEVIATION

National Geographic Society
National Geographic, working with partners Ashoka and the U.N. World Tourism Organization, will launch the Global Geotourism Network in March, 2008 to encourage tourism that sustains or enhances the geographical character of a place. Over the next three years the Network will develop a series of initiatives including two geotourism summits, the Ashoka Changemakers Competition to identify innovators and social entrepreneurs, an annual Places Rated destination stewardship survey distributed through National Geographic readers, and a specially designated website offering local tourism services and products.

XL Results Foundation/The Hunger Project
XL Results Foundation will contribute $5 million to implement a five-year strategy, to build the capacity of 50,000 elected women leaders who are directly responsible for improving access to health, education, nutrition and higher incomes for 15 million people in rural India. The project will also mobilize local populations to increase the effectiveness of local government, build federations of elected women leaders for advocacy and action and mobilize the power of the media to create public support for strengthening local democracy. Each million dollars raised enables The Hunger Project to provide training and ongoing support to 20,000 elected women representatives, who in turn will mobilize the energies of more than 6 million rural people for poverty eradication.

Hashoo Foundation
In December 2007, the Hashoo Foundation will launch the Honeybee Production project in the Northern Areas and Chitral (NAC) regions of Pakistan, which are amongst the poorest and most isolated in the country. Women account for 55% of honeybee producers in the NAC, but receive only 35% of the total income generated by honeybee production. With a strong focus on developing the production of by-products and creating linkages with markets, the Honeybee Project will allow local women to increase their income and provide for themselves and their dependants while expanding their future prospects.

ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE

Pratt Industries
In a $1 billion commitment Pratt Industries will build at least three new paper mills, four waste-to-energy plants and 30 materials recovery facilities over the next decade. Working with municipalities and sanitation departments it aims to avoid millions of tons of CO2 emissions.

Equator Environmental, LLC
Equator Environmental commits $100 million to establish a private equity fund investing in projects that are environmentally friendly, sustainable and directly preserve ecological assets. By monetizing these “eco-products” the fund will enhance the viability of the natural environment and showcase the importance of ecosystem preservation.

Green for All
Through the ground-breaking “Green for All” initiative, The Ella Barker Center for Human Rights is committing to help lead 250,000 Americans out of poverty and into “green-collar” jobs. With the continued growth in the building, solar, urban forestry, and bio-fuels sectors, a highly-trained “green-collar” workforce is needed to meet rising demand. Green for All will advocate for a national commitment to greater job training, employment and entrepreneurial opportunities - especially for people from disadvantaged communities. This transition could boost the U.S. economy, generating new opportunities for wealth and work.

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)
With funding from Rockefeller Brothers Fund, ACORE is committing to advance a more robust policy and economic case for renewable energy solutions and amplifying influential voices to strengthen public understanding of climate change. The commitment will create RECAP-the Renewable Energy Communications and Policy (RECAP) program-a three-year campaign that will put forward critical policy and economic analysis on energy supply, environment and climate, economic development and jobs, and national security. This unique work builds on ACORE’s 2006 commitment to host a world meeting on renewable energy, which has now been successfully funded, and is scheduled to be held as the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC 2008) on March 4-6, 2008 in Washington, D.C.

The Clinton Global Initiative is a project of the William J. Clinton Foundation that brings together a community of global leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges. CGI has approximately 1,000 members, diverse and influential leaders from all over the world, who make tangible commitments to create or support projects within CGI’s areas of focus. During the three-day Annual Meeting, attendees participate in workshops and meetings focused on four main topics: Global Heath, Education, Poverty Alleviation, and Energy & Climate Change. Attendees are required to make specific commitments to address one of the topics and report back to President Clinton on the progress made throughout the course of the year. Attendees who do not make or keep their commitment will not be invited to attend future meetings.

More later, with details of any interaction with the topmost figures of key influence in the world encountered at this great event.

Iowa Tara’s trashing of critics betrays ignorance of science history

Deplorable inaccuracies about a fine lady

OK, back to the Poison Dart Frog, our image for the laborious trashing of the critics of the wingless HIV∫AIDS paradigm by Tara C. Smith of Iowa and Steve P. Novella of Yale at the Public Library of Science under the misleading title HIV Denial in the Internet Era.

The smokescreen of misconceived notions about the HIV critics and about science pumped out by this tract is nothing new.

Knocking the credentials of the HIV critics naturally occurs to defenders, perhaps, when their attitudes are drawn from uncritical acceptance of authority more than from their own investigations, as this paper suggests.

In general, HIV paradigm promoters choose to defend the science of HIV∫AIDS with political rather than scientific counter attacks, and this essay with its studious avoidance of the scientific debate is a fine example, since the authors make it explicit. The authors claim that the non peer reviewed Web pages they refer to at the NIH and CDC do the scientific debunking of the critics for them, but since those pages are not peer reviewed, they make it hard not to conclude that the real problem these defenders have is that they lack faith in the science and/or lack the answers to defend it directly.

We would say that their attempt to support the conventional wisdom with diversionary replies is a gift to the critics, since objective onlookers are provided with evidence of insecurity, historical misunderstanding and belligerent defensiveness that suggest that the critics are on the right track.

This is why we feel that a blow by blow deconstruction is worthwhile, since this unusually lengthy and “worked up” series of political potshots now on display at the NSF Public Library of Science offers a rare chance to make a thorough reply to the propaganda, for a change. This seems preferable to ignoring it as beneath serious consideration, and letting it sit like a slow release AZT pill into the bloodstream of the national discourse. Better to offer a complete antidote rather than allow this to happen, as it so often does because the expert and high level critics of HIV and AIDS, such as the distinguished Peter Duesberg, or the fiery Harvey Bialy, find it distasteful to deal with such ignorant trashing of their position as peer-reviewed elite commentators, and would rather occupy themselves with more constructive activities than responding to material which no intelligent student of science can take seriously.

This is why in a spirit of self sacrifice we offer our own deconstruction of the Frog, realizing that seasoned observers of this long drawn out battle such as the witty MacDonald will not find our series of posts on it very original; but we hope that it will be useful to newcomers to the arena, one obscure to so many people such as Hank Campbell for lack of of media coverage.

Saddling up the camels for this trek across this intellectual desert, we will now go through the claims of the text one by one. Here they are:

1. Implication that any paradigm debunking is by definition invalid

It may seem remarkable that, 23 years after the identification of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), there is still denial that the virus is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). This denial was highlighted on an international level in 2000, when South African president Thabo Mbeki convened a group of panelists to discuss the cause of AIDS, acknowledging that he remained unconvinced that HIV was the cause [1]. His ideas were derived at least partly from material he found on the Internet [2]. Though Mbeki agreed later that year to step back from the debate [3], he subsequently suggested a re-analysis of health spending with a decreased emphasis on HIV/AIDS [4].

Response: On the contrary, there is nothing at all surprising in the fact that few people outside the field of HIV∫AIDS, and not everyone in it, know that there is still a serious question that the virus HIV is the cause of AIDS after 23 years, because there has been effective official and institutional censorship, some explicit, including the leading media, of the news.

That any public criticism still exists despite the huge pressure against challenging HIV=AIDS should tell you, in fact, that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, especially when a seasoned politician leading the most advanced country in Africa looks into the question for himself, rather than depending solely on advisors, and is then sufficiently alarmed to call a special panel of science professionals from both sides to resolve the issue, because he has been directed via the Internet to relevant and authoritative material in the peer reviewed mainstream scientific literature which is not being reported in the media, and then resists tremendous political and media pressure to go along and conform to the paradigm, and instead frees up his health policy from total dependence on the suspect paradigm claim, after it is neither proven nor justified by its supporters at the special panel he called to review it. For that is the story of what has happened in South Africa.

2. Just quoting the skeptics is enough to show them up

The false premise of the entire text of this essay is established at the start by the clear suggestion that it is enough to quote the statements and behavior of the skeptics to show how laughable they are, and that quoting and replying to any of their scientific objections is not necessary.

Response: This assumption is by definition scientifically naive since any familiarity with the history of science and medicine, not to mention simple logic, will indicate that science advances paradigm by paradigm, with the old replaced by the new and improved as a result of fresh data and thinking, much to the surprise and chagrin of people who assume that the consensus of conventional scientists is a validation of their belief. By definition all replaced paradigms reign by overwhelming consensus until they are overthrown by revisionists, who as Schopenhauer and others have pointed out, are inevitably first ridiculed, then violently opposed, and finally joined by their opponents who will claim they knew their new paradigm was right all the time.

Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized: In the first it is ridiculed. In the second, it is opposed. In the third it is regarded as self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer.

(see the page of this and other salutary Quotations on Science, Politics and Beliefin the blog, indexed as a link in the list of Pages in the right margin).

3. Implication that any challengers are “dangerous” to the public interest, untutored in science and unqualified to discuss the issue

HIV denial has taken root in the general population and has shown its potential to frustrate public education efforts and adversely affect public funding for AIDS research and prevention programs. For example, the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) was for many years on the front lines of AIDS education and activism. But now a San Francisco chapter of the group has joined the denialist movement, stating on its Web site that “HIV does not cause AIDS… HIV antibody tests are flawed and dangerous…AIDS drugs are poison” (http://www.actupsf.com/aids/index.htm). In 2000 the chapter wrote letters to every member of Congress asking them to stop funding research into HIV [5]. ACT UP San Francisco’s position has been condemned by other ACT UP chapters, such as ACT UP Philadelphia and ACT UP East Bay (http://www.actupny.org/indexfolder/actupgg.html). Rock stars have weighed in on the topic. Members of the group “The Foo Fighters” provided music for a soundtrack of the recent documentary, “The Other Side of AIDS” (http://www.theothersideofaids.com/), which questions whether HIV is the cause of AIDS. The band has spread its message that HIV does not cause AIDS at concerts [6], and it lists the HIV denial group “Alive and Well” as a worthy cause on its Web site (http://www.foofighters.com/community_cause.html).

Response: Defending against paradigm challenges by labeling them a danger to public remedial measures begs the question who is right about the paradigm, rather than answering it. A political argument of this kind suggests that the scientific defense is not strong enough to stand by itself, an implication that this whole essay carries.

That respectable people who normally would be expected to follow mainstream institutional and professional authority especially in matters of science and medicine turn against it so decisively, especially after long trusting the paradigm and fighting for it as in the case of ACTUP San Franscisco, tells us that there must be persuasive arguments against the claim of authority which have led them to take a public stand against it in the face of social sanctions and penalties of all kinds, including this kind of scorn.

Since the lay dissenters quoted take an active part by publicly insisting on paradigm review, in the case of the Foo Fighters at the risk of losing some of their audience, their public stand indicates that they take the issue very seriously and are not merely superficially deluded fools who persist out of sheer iconoclasm, especially when they assert factually detailed views on their web pages, as in the case of ACT UP San Franscisco.

4. Misleading characterization of challengers and their arguments as below the level of peer-reviewed literature

As these challenges to mainstream theories have largely occurred outside of the scientific literature, many physicians and researchers have had the luxury of ignoring them as fringe beliefs and therefore inconsequential. Indeed, the Internet has served as a fertile and un-refereed medium to spread these denialist beliefs. The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis (“Reappraising AIDS”) noted, “Thanks to the ascendance of the internet, we are now able to reinvigorate our informational campaign” [7]. The Internet is an effective tool for targeting young people, and for spreading misinformation within a group at high risk for HIV infection.

Response: This attempt to stain the critics objections as unable to meet the standards of peer review, and thus able to find self-publication only on the Internet, is 100% inappropriate and misleading. The opposite is correct.

The challenge to the mainstream HIV∫AIDS theory was initiated and pursued at the highest level of the scientific literature by the senior expert in the relevant field, retrovirology, and repeatedly survived (and thus was doubly validated by) the fiercest and most hostile peer reviewers, who knew perfectly well their own backsides were on the line if they let any of the material through, but they were unable to prove it incorrect or even questionable. All their objections were met before publication.

The critique of the paradigm published by this expert retrovirologist, Peter Duesberg, from 1987 to 2003 has never been countered effectively in the top journals where it has appeared, where no peer-reviewed rebuttal has been attempted, despite a promise to do so by Gallo at the Proceedings of the National Academy, where the longest fundamental debunking took place in 1988.

Duesberg’s review and rejection of the paradigm thus stands as the best and most validated peer-reviewed science in the matter, even though, politically speaking, the paradigm bandwagon has steered around it, and while intensely resisting any media coverage of the reviews, delivered every scientist riding on it to the unusually large HIV∫AIDS trough at the NIH, where every now and then they raise their heads and cry, No review necessary! Any questioning dangerous! before resuming feeding again.

If anything the fringe pseudoscience is not the HIV∫AIDS paradigm refutation by its critics, but the initially politically established, never scientifically substantiated, soon professionally reviewed and rejected ruling paradigm of HIV=AIDS, purveyed by its leading scientists and officials such as John Moore, Mark Wainberg and Anthony Fauci who act as despots of the field banning media coverage of paradigm critics and are enthusiastically joined in this by outsiders such as Tara and Steve who naively imagine they are defending good science.

The critics occupy the fringes of publication on the Internet only because print and television editors know better than to assign articles on the topic, even if they have the resources and inclination to investigate science, for fear of misunderstanding, ridicule, and alienating the NIAID, where the policy announced in print in an AAAS newsletter by director Anthony Fauci early on was that no reporter who raised the topic of the reviews that rejected HIV in the literature would have his or her calls returned.

With editors uniformly playing the role of establishment gatekeepers the Internet is indeed the only public venue readily available for the distribution of this information, information which in its ability to explain the paradoxes and insults to common sense and good science inherent in the standard model of HIV=AIDS has such power to suggest that revision is necessary, and that the drugs are suspect and dangerous, that the paradigm promoters justifiably view it as “dangerous”, and rightly so, to the funding of the paradigm, and try to deflect it with political misdirection such as calling it ‘pseudoscience’. If the critics are right the danger is to their welfare, clearly, and not to the welfare of patients, who will benefit. It is hard to imagine that anyone who genuinely believes that the case for HIV=AIDS is rock solid scientifically would fear and smear those call for open debate.

5. Misrepresenting promotional fact sheets as peer reviewed science

Two excellent online fact sheets have been prepared to counter many of the most commonly used arguments to deny HIV causation of AIDS [8,9]; as such, we will not discuss these in this article. Instead, we will review the current intellectual strategies used by the HIV denial movement. Although other forms of science denial will not be specifically discussed, the characteristics described below apply to many other forms of popular denial, including denial of evolution, mental illness, and the Holocaust.

Response: The official fact sheets referred to are not peer-reviewed, and are not a valid excuse for avoiding any mention of the specifics of the scientific debunking of the paradigm by critics.

Nor are the objections of the critics vitiated by whatever “intellectual strategies” the authors might like to discern in a supposed “HIV denial movement”, both of which phrases imply that the battle is a political one, when in fact it is only a political one because the defenders of the paradigm resist the free and open purely scientific review demanded by the critics.

There is very little coordination among the disparate and widely scattered sources of paradigm rebuttal, such as this blog, or the many individuals and groups around the world listed in the Accurate/Helpful section of our link index on the right. Rather, there appears to be much more coordination in the consistent, in fact universal refusal of the many individuals and institutions working with the globally entrenched paradigm to countenance any questioning at all, let alone respect any critics, who are countered with media censorship, funding and tenure refusals, and active smearing and disinformation at AIDSTruth, the New York Times and multiple media outlets.

To repeat, our pair of paradigm defenders in stating their purpose neatly evade the need to produce any kind of scientific rebuttal by quoting the NIAID Factsheet and the site AIDSTruth.org of John P. Moore as sources of rebuttal, when neither is peer-reviewed and the latter site very seriously misleading in its science, as this blog has often pointed out in earlier posts, most egregiosuly including statements where scientists contradict their own research, most notoriously Nancy Padian and her attempt to disown her landmark study demonstrating “HIV positivity” does not transmit between the sexes.

These scientifically corrupted sites cannot weigh in the balance against the peer-reviewed rejections of the paradigm in the highest journals in science by one of the most respected practitioners of retrovirology, Peter Duesberg, who is universally respected for his own work by his peers, even those who resist his HIV=AIDS critique, for the quality of all his research and publications, which have never been questioned, except for the extremely high quality critique he has made of HIV=AIDS theory, which has led those of his colleagues who are its promoters to shun him, rather than answer him, which in itself is a signal of how much they fear his view. But none of them has ever called him personally anything but a fine scientist.

6. Misinformation peddled as fact

One of the prominent HIV denial groups currently is Christine Maggiore’s “Alive and Well” (formerly “HEAL,” Health Education AIDS Liaison) (http://www.aliveandwell.org/). Maggiore’s life story is at the center of this group. Diagnosed with HIV in 1992, Maggiore claims she has since been symptom-free for the past 14 years without the use of antiretroviral drugs, including protease inhibitors [10]. She has risen to prominence, and been embroiled in controversy, in recent years after giving birth to and openly breast-feeding her two children, Charles and Eliza Jane. She had neither child tested for HIV, and did not take antiretroviral medication during her pregnancy or subsequent breast-feeding [11]. Eliza Jane died in September 2005 of HIV-related pneumonia [12], though Maggiore remains unconvinced that HIV had any role in her daughter’s death [13], and continues to preach her message to other HIV-positive mothers.

Response: This paragraph is misleading on the facts, which it misstates in prejudicial terms. Whether Christine Maggiore was ever HIV positive remains a question, with her critics now saying she was not. Her resistance to treatment with standard medication would be understandable, even if she hadn’t read deeply into the paradigm issue and written a very thorough book debunking it.

The hounding of Maggiore on the false assumption she betrayed her daughter by not having her tested for HIV is deplorable, since the tragedy of Maggiore’s child Eliza Jane was that she suffered a rapidly fatal allergic shock reaction to an antibiotic, and had no AIDS symptoms, contrary to claims by the coroner. She did not suffer from HIV∫AIDS nor did she die from it, since she did not test HIV positive after death, and her T cell count was quite remarkably high.

The lynch mob treatment of Christine Maggiore in the aftermath of this tragedy by misinformed people has been one of the worst episodes of this wretched affair, and it may reasonably be labeled a disgrace that reputable scientists such as Tara and Steven should blindly join in this perfidy, where naivete is no excuse.

7. Mistaken belief that science is a democracy, decided by the authority of consensus

That HIV is the primary cause of AIDS is the strongly held consensus opinion of the scientific community, based upon over two decades of robust research. Deniers must therefore reject this consensus, either by denigrating the notion of scientific authority in general, or by arguing that the mainstream HIV community is intellectually compromised. It is therefore not surprising that much of the newer denial literature reflects a basic distrust of authority and of the institutions of science and medicine. In her book, Christine Maggiore thanks her father Robert, “who taught me to question authority and stand up for what’s right” [10]. Similarly, mathematical modeler Dr. Rebecca Culshaw, another HIV denier, states: “As someone who has been raised by parents who taught me from a young age never to believe anything just because ‘everyone else accepts it to be true,’ I can no longer just sit by and do nothing, thereby contributing to this craziness” [17].

Response: All established paradigms are naturally and inevitably based on wide consensus, but all advances of a major order in science and medicine involve overturning that consensus. Science is not a democracy, and its questions are not decided by vote. It is decided by gathering research data and by reasoning, in open debate, on the meaning of the data, and this free discussion is the life blood of good science. The worst sign of a paradigm which has gone past its due date is the fierce resistance which gathers to prevent its overthrow by rejecting criticism.

Any time anyone calls for repressing any view in science, as the HIV=AIDS promoters do, they betray their lack of understanding of how science develops. When scientists or institutions foreclose debate by refusing to review any data or interpretation called into question in the peer reviewed literature, they abandon science itself, which dies if questioning dies, and becomes religion.

Authority and consensus might reflect the best judgment of the current leaders of a field, but consensus is always subject to the myriad social and psychological influences listed at the top of this blog. These may influence the peer-reviewed literature too, but with all its flaws it’s the best measure of the validity of a paradigm that we have, and that is why this blog reviews the paradigm in the light of the literature, which lies unread by most defenders of the faith, including it seems clear, Tara and Steven.

To be continued.

Hotz at Journal initiates wave of media coverage of error in science

Most studies wrong

Attentive perusers of this modest blog may have noticed that we recently expanded its subhead to include the thought that while we base our critique of the public claims of Robert Gallo, Anthony Fauci, John P. Moore, Mark Wainberg, Nancy Padian and other highly decorated generals of the HIV∫AIDS salvation army on the peer-reviewed literature, a certain caveat is in order.

Not everything which finds its way into science and medical journals, even the top ones, is totally reliable, because even if the authors are not conscious of being emotionally flawed human beings subject to all the warping influences listed in the blogo above, their best efforts would still include bad design, inadvertent error and unconscious “data management”, perhaps because they make false assumptions at the start of the study, a habit which is universal in HIV∫AIDS.

As we have mentioned earlier one of the more distinguished scientists we have been privileged to interview, the renowned Harvard researcher and Nobel prize winner Walter Gilbert, once confided to us that whenever he embarked on a new investigation prompted by someone else’s paper he would always try to repeat the experiment himself, and was surprisingly often chagrined to find that he couldn’t.

And in our early efforts to report on the objections raised by the equally distinguished retrovirology researcher Peter Duesberg of Berkeley to the theoretical kite flown by Robert Gallo in 1984 in AIDS, the unlikely notion that the ugly and fatal new syndrome of immune collapse was cause by an infectious virus eventually labeled Human Immunodeficiency Virus, unfortunately immediately backed by the federal government and thus rendered sacrosanct, we were taken aback by the deep analysis of papers in HIV∫AIDS that the Berkeley professor frequently explained to us privately which showed they were badly done and poorly argued and as a result entirely misleading, even if one accepted the uncritical assumption that they were all based upon, that HIV was the right culprit for the new and appalling disease.

Politely ignoring a huge problem

We also noted, however, that in arguing against the HIV=AIDS paradigm, professor Duesberg did not at first rely on exposing the shoddiness of the papers that resulted from it. He would directly undermine the paradigm by accepting the data and conclusions of the literature, and then show how the paradigm did not stack up - in fact was contradicted by the very papers that were claimed to shore it up.

Only later was he forced to show how many major results were based on poorly designed studies which were misinterpreted, an obligation unfairly thrust upon him in answering the somewhat specious demand, Well if it isn’t HIV, what is it that causes AIDS, then? The demand is specious because so much of the literature is based on the assumption that it is HIV which is the villain in the drama, that most of it will have to be redone without that assumption to nail down the real and obviously multiple causes of immune failure in all five continents, with all their disparate symptoms and epidemiology.

A mudslide of articles about error

Anyhow we are pleased to notice that a rash of articles came out this week publicizing this little noticed fact, that it is not simply fraud which occasionally corrupts the peer-reviewed literature, it is the inadequacy of peer review, which often lets go by papers which should have been corrected or redone, whose conclusions are unreliable.

Needless to say, one of the marks of the horrendously incompetent science reporting carried out in the media - reporting that mostly doesn’t rise above the level of noting down and publishing what sources say without it passing through the critical faculties of the reporter, assuming that these even exist, let alone actually double checking it with critics in the traditional manner observed in every other field of public affairs - is that none of the top reporters whose specialty HIV=AIDS is, with the exception of HIV skeptic Celia Farber in Harpers, and of course HIV skeptic Liam Scheff elsewhere, has shown any interest whatsoever in the possibility that research in the field is questionable.

It is as if they either didn’t know, or have given the NIAID under the firm control of Lasker winner Dr Anthony Fauci a free pass, for some reason, possibly one associated with the undeniable hostility of that public servant to such notions.

How wrong it is to assume that published, peer reviewed science is scripture engraved in tablets of stone is well known to those familiar with the Baltimore scandal, where Nobelist David Baltimore blocked retraction of an incorrect paper with his name on it for years until three Congressional investigations finally prised his protective grip from it. Whether error or knowing fraud (by the lead author, not Baltimore) was involved was not quite made clear, but the subsequent book by Daniel Kevles exonerated Dr Baltimore sufficiently that having been ignominiously kicked out of the presidency of Rockefeller University, eventually the renowned researcher was able to be reinstated in the eyes of the public with the presidency of Caltech, from which he recently retired, where professor Kevles also moved from Yale.

Hotz’ hot column points to Ioannidis’s white hot essay

But fraud is not an interesting subject to contemplate, even if the cases of it which are occasionally exposed in the public prints are often spectacular, as in the case of the downfall of the Korean gentleman recently. The important point is that bad but not intentionally fraudulent science gets into print even in the top journals, as HIV/AIDS has shown in its own spectacular fashion, and science reporters seem universally unaware of this possibility. Now however, we have more than one article suddenly acknowledging this problem.

The first was last Friday, when the Wall Street Journal printed a column by Robert Lee Hotz, Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis, reporting on the work of John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist who studies research methods at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece and Tufts University in Medford, Mass.

Ioannidis has documented how the conclusions of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers may be invalid because the research is inept. In fact, he is the star of the Public Library of Science, where his stunningly honest essay of 2005, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False is their most downloaded technical paper, which is clearly what prompted Hotz’ column.

The essay is a strong contrast with Tara C. Smith and Steven Novella’s froglike masterpiece which we are deconstructing here when more important matters do not obtrude, as in the case of this exemplary piece of research based, logically sound, statistically formulated and politically sophisticated scientific commentary:

Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias….

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. …..

Bias

First, let us define bias as the combination of various design, data, analysis, and presentation factors that tend to produce research findings when they should not be produced…..

Corollary 4: The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Flexibility increases the potential for transforming what would be “negative” results into “positive” results, i.e., bias, u.…..

Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Conflicts of interest and prejudice may increase bias, u. Conflicts of interest are very common in biomedical research [26], and typically they are inadequately and sparsely reported [26,27]. Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots. Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings. Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure. Such nonfinancial conflicts may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations. Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings, thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable [28].

Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true….

Most Research Findings Are False for Most Research Designs and for Most Fields …

Claimed Research Findings May Often Be Simply Accurate Measures of the Prevailing Bias…

Traditionally, investigators have viewed large and highly significant effects with excitement, as signs of important discoveries. Too large and too highly significant effects may actually be more likely to be signs of large bias in most fields of modern research. They should lead investigators to careful critical thinking about what might have gone wrong with their data, analyses, and results.

Of course, investigators working in any field are likely to resist accepting that the whole field in which they have spent their careers is a “null field.” However, other lines of evidence, or advances in technology and experimentation, may lead eventually to the dismantling of a scientific field….

How Can We Improve the Situation?

Is it unavoidable that most research findings are false, or can we improve the situation? A major problem is that it is impossible to know with 100% certainty what the truth is in any research question….

Large-scale evidence is also particularly indicated when it can test major concepts rather than narrow, specific questions. A negative finding can then refute not only a specific proposed claim, but a whole field or considerable portion thereof. Selecting the performance of large-scale studies based on narrow-minded criteria, such as the marketing promotion of a specific drug, is largely wasted research.…

What matters is the totality of the evidence. Diminishing bias through enhanced research standards and curtailing of prejudices may also help. However, this may require a change in scientific mentality that might be difficult to achieve.…

Finally, instead of chasing statistical significance, we should improve our understanding of the range of R values—the pre-study odds—where research efforts operate [10]. Before running an experiment, investigators should consider what they believe the chances are that they are testing a true rather than a non-true relationship. Speculated high R values may sometimes then be ascertained. As described above, whenever ethically acceptable, large studies with minimal bias should be performed on research findings that are considered relatively established, to see how often they are indeed confirmed. I suspect several established “classics” will fail the test [36].

Nevertheless, most new discoveries will continue to stem from hypothesis-generating research with low or very low pre-study odds. We should then acknowledge that statistical significance testing in the report of a single study gives only a partial picture, without knowing how much testing has been done outside the report and in the relevant field at large.

Human error in papers

Here is how Hotz in Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis told the many readers of the pragmatic Wall Street Journal about this problem, thus ensuring that many investors, lawyers, and other people who need realistic information about scientific claims of world pandemics are now aware that scientists’ pronouncements, and their published literature, may have to be double checked for accuracy, since the New York Times has a habit of not bothering to do so, not having the money or inclination to employ factcheckers since it trusts its reporters to get it right, since they have instant access after all to the top gurus of every field, and judging from their public appearances do not appear to be overworked:

Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis

We all make mistakes and, if you believe medical scholar John Ioannidis, scientists make more than their fair share. By his calculations, most published research findings are wrong.

Dr. Ioannidis is an epidemiologist who studies research methods at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece and Tufts University in Medford, Mass. In a series of influ